icanhandthemback
What I don't understand, MaizieD, is if it was that easy, why doesn't anybody do it? I know I've asked you before all about the economic measures you think should be taken but I failed my economics exams several times which finished off my professional qualifications is Accountancy!
Money is such a complicated subject, but basically, a sovereign state, i.e. one that issues, and demands the use of its own currency for transactions, is free to issue as much as it likes so long as the money is trusted by its users and so long as it doesn't issue so much that it causes excessive inflation. There is no physical material, such as gold, 'giving value to the money that is issued; that was abandoned in the early 1970s. Since then all the worlds' currencies have only been valued against other currencies.
Even when backed by, say, gold, governments have usually issued enough physical note and coin to ensure that transactions can take place within the domestic economy; if they hadn't the economy would grind to a halt, or some sort of substitute for physical money would have arisen. Like, for instance, men in POW camps during WW2 would use cigarettes as a unit of payment. Issue of physical currency would also accommodate a rising population. If we look at money available to the population of 45million post WW2 and available to the current UK population of some 66 million it is clear that the supply of physical money has expanded hugely and that isn't because it's been 'earned' by trade with other countries.
A great deal of our money is 'created' by commercial banks when they make loans to businesses or individuals. This is completely new money and has nothing to do with money held in the bank's deposit accounts. The money is created, is used in the economy to sustain private enterprise and create of maintain jobs. When the loan is repaid the created money is essentially destroyed, but it has stimulated a great deal of economic activity before that happens. Banks are licenced to create money by the government.
Money issued by the Bank of England is exactly the same. It is created out of thin air, by keying in numbers on a keyboard, or by ordering the manufacture of physical money, paid for by the same 'numbers on a keyboard' method...
Governments 'borrow' money because that's what they've done for hundreds of years, but this could be looked at as providing a safe saving facility for peoples' money, in that the money 'lent' (saved) will always be repaid on request, or, in the case of bonds and gilts, at term. The government pays interest on these 'savings/borrowings'. Individuals and institutions find them a reliable source of income. And have done for hundreds of years... just read some Jane Austen, a heroine's £1,000 invested in the 5%s would give her a reliable £50 p.a income 
But, during recent moments of financial stress the government used Quantitative Easing to put more money into circulation. It created a situation in which the money for the govt. bond purchases either went to the Treasury for govt expenditure (covid) , or, to the commercial banks to, in theory, lend to businesses to promote growth in the depression following the Global Financial Crisis.
Having said all this, there is absolutely no compelling reason why a government shouldn't cut out the middle man of 'investors/savers' and bond purchases, and just pay for what it purchases directly. Instead of it returning via loan repayments it can return to the government via taxation, or savings and investment.
So, really, to answer your question, 'people' do it all the time... They just have to be careful that they don't create more than is needed and be prepared to tax back excess to control inflation. But inflation's not too much of a worry so long as there are goods and services available to be purchased. There are other functions for taxation.
I'm not sure that conventional economics courses really look at the origin and creation of money.
It does seem that for 56 years no one has worked out how to fund hospitals.