The Tories are in sight of their goal aren’t they?

It matters because of competing demands from other important issues, like education for example MaizieD.

You're not understanding the economics of it, are you Casdon? The state doesn't have a finite amount of money, it can spend whatever it needs. The only real limit it has is the availability of resources. There is o need for one sector to compete for money with another.

I'm not disagreeing with you Casdon. It's a debate we have to have. Of course, everybody wants the best for themselves. If I needed constant healthcare and it were possible to provide it at home, that's what I'd want. My sisters and I paid for it for the last few weeks of my mother's life. However, it wouldn't have been possible for months or years, and I don't think the cost to the NHS could have been justified.

Every so often there's a campaign in the media to fund very expensive cancer drugs or treatments. If I were the patient with a terminal condition, I might want to try them, but the NHS currently has a limited budget and it's supposed to be a national health service, trying its best to treat as many people as possible. The cost of some of these drugs would pay for two or three extra nurses, who could treat far more people. I think there needs to be an honest debate about how far we go. It's a sad fact that some people resent paying taxes so that more people can benefit from good treatment.

It is actually really difficult to get, even if you meet the criteria. There are lots of us who have first hand experience of it too. What would have happened in the past if people needed ongoing care? they'd have had district nurse support (amongst other care outcomes - whichever suitable) - which would work well. It is as though the long term outcomes of cuts to services have come to fruition. It is frightening to those of us have family members with long term conditions and has been for a while.

MaizieD

^It matters because of competing demands from other important issues, like education for example MaizieD.^

You're not understanding the economics of it, are you Casdon? The state doesn't have a finite amount of money, it can spend whatever it needs. The only real limit it has is the availability of resources. There is o need for one sector to compete for money with another.

I do understand the economics of it MaizieD, I’ve followed your posts about it for a while. Do you understand how bottomless the demand for health is though?

MaizieD

^It matters because of competing demands from other important issues, like education for example MaizieD.^

You're not understanding the economics of it, are you Casdon? The state doesn't have a finite amount of money, it can spend whatever it needs. The only real limit it has is the availability of resources. There is o need for one sector to compete for money with another.

The state doesn't have a finite budget, but the NHS does.

The state could choose to give the NHS more money, but it won't and that's ideological.

Of course it means higher taxes, which are anathema to some.

NO IT DOESN'T.

I'm just wasting my time attempting to explain how state funding actually works, aren't I?

I assume that people just see my name on a longish post and go straight past without reading it.

www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/sites/bartlett_public_purpose/files/the_self-financing_state_an_institutional_analysis_of_government_expenditure_revenue_collection_and_debt_issuance_operations_in_the_united_kingdom.pdf

gimms.org.uk/2022/11/26/spending-chains-sankey-diagrams/#_ftn8

gimms.org.uk/2019/02/10/uk-government-spending-taxation-bank-lending/

Casdon

MaizieD

It matters because of competing demands from other important issues, like education for example MaizieD.

You're not understanding the economics of it, are you Casdon? The state doesn't have a finite amount of money, it can spend whatever it needs. The only real limit it has is the availability of resources. There is o need for one sector to compete for money with another.

I do understand the economics of it MaizieD, I’ve followed your posts about it for a while. Do you understand how bottomless the demand for health is though?

But if the state is able to fund that demand and the resources are available to deal with it why should we be worried about it?

A shortage of actual resources would be a different matter. But money is always there. As growstuff says, the refusal to spend it is purely ideological.

MaizieD

Casdon

MaizieD

It matters because of competing demands from other important issues, like education for example MaizieD.

You're not understanding the economics of it, are you Casdon? The state doesn't have a finite amount of money, it can spend whatever it needs. The only real limit it has is the availability of resources. There is o need for one sector to compete for money with another.

I do understand the economics of it MaizieD, I’ve followed your posts about it for a while. Do you understand how bottomless the demand for health is though?

But if the state is able to fund that demand and the resources are available to deal with it why should we be worried about it?

A shortage of actual resources would be a different matter. But money is always there. As growstuff says, the refusal to spend it is purely ideological.

I know. No government of any persuasion will ever allocate a limitless pot to health though, I’m sure you can see that, and see why?

some of the issues are created by big pharma though, I can think of a few very recent examples

MaizieD

^Of course it means higher taxes, which are anathema to some.^

NO IT DOESN'T.

I'm just wasting my time attempting to explain how state funding actually works, aren't I?

I assume that people just see my name on a longish post and go straight past without reading it.

www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/sites/bartlett_public_purpose/files/the_self-financing_state_an_institutional_analysis_of_government_expenditure_revenue_collection_and_debt_issuance_operations_in_the_united_kingdom.pdf

gimms.org.uk/2022/11/26/spending-chains-sankey-diagrams/#_ftn8

gimms.org.uk/2019/02/10/uk-government-spending-taxation-bank-lending/

Oh MaizieD I know better that contradict you about this! Or ignore you.

I was just making the point that if a person paid more in tax, their taxes would go up. 🤷🏼

MaizieD

Casdon

MaizieD

It matters because of competing demands from other important issues, like education for example MaizieD.

You're not understanding the economics of it, are you Casdon? The state doesn't have a finite amount of money, it can spend whatever it needs. The only real limit it has is the availability of resources. There is o need for one sector to compete for money with another.

I do understand the economics of it MaizieD, I’ve followed your posts about it for a while. Do you understand how bottomless the demand for health is though?

But if the state is able to fund that demand and the resources are available to deal with it why should we be worried about it?

A shortage of actual resources would be a different matter. But money is always there. As growstuff says, the refusal to spend it is purely ideological.

It's not quite so simple. The resources aren't available to deal with the demand. The government could allocate billions more to the NHS, but the people aren't there to fill the vacancies.

Moreover, the government doesn't want billions circulating in the economy without somebody making a profit out of it. It's not in Tory DNA. Health and social care uses something like 20% of GDP and Tories don't want that money to just circulate and they don't care less about the quality of life for the majority.

Insurance schemes and top-up private care would suit Tories just fine because somebody would be making money. It would also mean that some people wouldn't have to slob out with the plebs and wait their turn.

Casdon

MaizieD

It matters because of competing demands from other important issues, like education for example MaizieD.

You're not understanding the economics of it, are you Casdon? The state doesn't have a finite amount of money, it can spend whatever it needs. The only real limit it has is the availability of resources. There is o need for one sector to compete for money with another.

I do understand the economics of it MaizieD, I’ve followed your posts about it for a while. Do you understand how bottomless the demand for health is though?

I think this idea of it being bottomless is not as cut and dried as is often presented. If we have good health care that picks up the initial issues and treats them then many things would not go on to be major and some of the much higher costs would not occur. Or you could be this government and just let people die. I imagine there is some saving in doing that.

Perhaps we should adopt the New Zealand model. Between fifty and a hundred dollars for a GP consultation (£25 to £50) and no being put on a waiting list for treatment unless the list is open, and many lists are closed, so if you want treatment you need to pay for it.
The NHS is struggling but it could be worse!

Incidentally drugs cost a lot more than £9 or free. GP consultation is free only for children up to the age of 14.

Also doctors don’t have access to the wide range of drugs available on prescription in the UK. Usually there is only a choice of only one or two that come with reduced price, if they don’t suit you then the full and often high price of the drug must be paid, if you want the drug. This information came from my daughter, a GP in New Zealand.
Things are not great in the UK but there is worse elsewhere. And let’s not forget that New Zealand has a Socialist government.

maddyone

Perhaps we should adopt the New Zealand model. Between fifty and a hundred dollars for a GP consultation (£25 to £50) and no being put on a waiting list for treatment unless the list is open, and many lists are closed, so if you want treatment you need to pay for it.
The NHS is struggling but it could be worse!

No, thank you!

You’d be amazed DaisyAnne. However much investment goes into a service it’s is always outstripped by demand, which is hidden until a service is available. For example, Mental Health services could have their staffing and patient workload doubled and the demand wouldn’t be met, waiting lists would not go down, etc. because there is huge unmet need. The same applies to services like pain management, dermatology, ENT, etc. it’s not just about initial issues being dealt with, it’s also about the currently unresourced health issues.

It is funny though when you think about it, our parents and grandparents in 1947 probably had considerably less wealth and were paid much less, but didn't think it would be an impossible task to fund care from the cradle to the grave. Medicine at the time was still dealing with TB and other deadly infectious diseases. Glasgow had over 2000 TB cases.
api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1949/jul/07/tuberculosis-glasgow
But they managed. It really is about the will to do it.

I agree growstuff. Things could be better with the NHS but they could be worse too.

From a professional point of view, my daughter dislikes the fact that her prescribing options are limited so she often can’t prescribe the best drug because her patient can’t afford it.

Anyway happy new year from New Zealand, which is where we are currently.

Glorianny

It is funny though when you think about it, our parents and grandparents in 1947 probably had considerably less wealth and were paid much less, but didn't think it would be an impossible task to fund care from the cradle to the grave. Medicine at the time was still dealing with TB and other deadly infectious diseases. Glasgow had over 2000 TB cases.
api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1949/jul/07/tuberculosis-glasgow
But they managed. It really is about the will to do it.

Men died at 65 on average, and women at 72 in the 1940s, and they didn’t predict the impact of increasingly life expectancy, or the advance of medicine and technology on the cost of the NHS. How could they? I agree where there’s a will there’s a way, but services, and public expectations have changed dramatically in the last nearly 80 years.

Glorianny

It is funny though when you think about it, our parents and grandparents in 1947 probably had considerably less wealth and were paid much less, but didn't think it would be an impossible task to fund care from the cradle to the grave. Medicine at the time was still dealing with TB and other deadly infectious diseases. Glasgow had over 2000 TB cases.
api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1949/jul/07/tuberculosis-glasgow
But they managed. It really is about the will to do it.

Well said.

Casdon

Glorianny

It is funny though when you think about it, our parents and grandparents in 1947 probably had considerably less wealth and were paid much less, but didn't think it would be an impossible task to fund care from the cradle to the grave. Medicine at the time was still dealing with TB and other deadly infectious diseases. Glasgow had over 2000 TB cases.
api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1949/jul/07/tuberculosis-glasgow
But they managed. It really is about the will to do it.

Men died at 65 on average, and women at 72 in the 1940s, and they didn’t predict the impact of increasingly life expectancy, or the advance of medicine and technology on the cost of the NHS. How could they? I agree where there’s a will there’s a way, but services, and public expectations have changed dramatically in the last nearly 80 years.

You are catastrophising Casdon. Stop thinking of it as an unsolvable catastrophe; it is then something those who want to can tackle.

Casdon

Glorianny

It is funny though when you think about it, our parents and grandparents in 1947 probably had considerably less wealth and were paid much less, but didn't think it would be an impossible task to fund care from the cradle to the grave. Medicine at the time was still dealing with TB and other deadly infectious diseases. Glasgow had over 2000 TB cases.
api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1949/jul/07/tuberculosis-glasgow
But they managed. It really is about the will to do it.

Men died at 65 on average, and women at 72 in the 1940s, and they didn’t predict the impact of increasingly life expectancy, or the advance of medicine and technology on the cost of the NHS. How could they? I agree where there’s a will there’s a way, but services, and public expectations have changed dramatically in the last nearly 80 years.

But health at the time was really poor. TB cases were just beginning to get drug treatment, but many still had long term hospital stays.
Besides treatment there was comprehensive health care from birth which involved regular health checks, for children and adults who worked with them. When I went to training college we had to have a medical examination and a chest x-ray. All those extra facilities have been abolished. It would have been so easy to look at things then and say "We cant afford that, there are too many sick people,"

Either taxes have to rise, or at some point both people and political parties will have to accept that ‘free at the point of use’ is no longer viable.

Other European countries, whose healthcare systems are so often praised as being so much better than ours, do make small charges at point of use. Except that it’s such a sacred cow here, I really don’t see why we can’t.
Better, surely, than privatisation?