Current Affairs 2023

[Mervyn and Trish]

I agree with Carole. All the time the NHS is a political football we won't get a long term plan.

And also with the various comments about being prepared to pay if we want a better service. When I worked in the NHS one of our nurses went to Sweden to look at what they were doing. Their health service was mostly free but they had a modest charge to visit a GP or A&E. About £5 and £15 respectively. Not a large amount if you had genuine need, but enough to deter time wasters and drunks. Given that something like 60% of our A&E attendances at the time were drink related that has to be worth a shot.

[Onelife]

For many years I worked in Germany which has an excellent health system so I agree David, you are correct in what you say. I'm afraid the idea of 'free at the point of delivery ' is no longer sustainable considering the range of treatments the NHS provides and the related costs.

The problem is that everyone wants a top class service but nobody wants to pay for them. UK and Joe Public needs to wake up to the fact current levels of taxation are insufficient to achieve what we want.
We should also free ourselves of the freeloaders who waste NHS time and resources to enable those who are genuinely in need to get the treatment they should be getting.

A similar case can be made for other areas of public service.

Hopefully we will be given the chance to decide because whatever increase on income tax is decided will in my opinion be better than taking the private insurance route…we’ll end up with a three tier system for sure.

[Stephen]

The way things are at the moment, If I had the money I would go private, but I don't.
So if it means a bit more to pay in the form of tax then so be it, but then the NHS have then got to deliver the service to match.

Can't see it happening any time soon myself

[Ray B]

The NHS is one institution that the majority of the population will at some time call upon. Why on earth have we allowed it to become what it is today. If we want a NHS to the standard we require, we all have to pay a bit more for it. As OL said above, it's still cheaper than private insurance, that's if they would even insure you.
I would agree to a penalty imposed for missed appointments to cut the loss to the service.

[david63]

whatever increase on income tax is decided will in my opinion be better than taking the private insurance route

Tax increases alone will not solve the NHS problem and neither will private insurance. There needs to be some hybrid system where the user supplements central funding. Will it lead to a two, or more, tier system? - possibly but we have that now to some extent.

The biggest problem is that to change, in particular, NHS funding is political suicide for whichever party tries to do it.

[barney]

An option could be for the NHS to be taken outside of the political sphere altogether.
It could be run and managed by non political experts in the field and the government responsibility would be to ensure it is financed.

[CaroleF]

If we can all see this, that there has to be change and somehow the public has to realise that to have the NHS they want then it's going to cost them more, then why on earth don't the political parties realise this and do something. I assume because any politician talking about the public having to pay more would be regarded as committing political suicide.

[towny44]

The NHS is one institution that the majority of the population will at some time call upon. Why on earth have we allowed it to become what it is today. If we want a NHS to the standard we require, we all have to pay a bit more for it. As OL said above, it's still cheaper than private insurance, that's if they would even insure you.
I would agree to a penalty imposed for missed appointments to cut the loss to the service.

Like many other service industries the quality and speed of service varies considerably. Huddersfield is now a TownCentreless rather disappointing Town to live in, but we appear to have an excellent hospital. The A&E is not very good, but the appointment and referral system is very speedy with very short waiting times and the service is of a very high standard, and this seems to extend over many of the disciplines. Whether this is due to our hospital having a smaller than average size of population I have no idea, but from our families recent expeience we have very little to complain about.

[david63]

An option could be for the NHS to be taken outside of the political sphere altogether.
It could be run and managed by non political experts in the field and the government responsibility would be to ensure it is financed.

I've been saying that for years - something along the lines of the BOE.

If we can all see this, that there has to be change and somehow the public has to realise that to have the NHS they want then it's going to cost them more, then why on earth don't the political parties realise this and do something.

I'm sure they can - but who is going to be brave enough to stick their head above the parapet?

Whether this is due to our hospital having a smaller than average size of population I have no idea,

I would guess that there are many factors that contribute to being in that situation.

[Ray B]

I certainly have nothing to complain about from the service the NHS has given us. As the waiting list continue to grow, unfortunately some people have to endure poor health and pain until they get an appointment. It is going to take a long time to get the waiting time down to a manageable level.
Would it really be political suicide if a government guarantee a tax would actually go to the health service? Which party would chance it.

[Onelife]

whatever increase on income tax is decided will in my opinion be better than taking the private insurance route

Tax increases alone will not solve the NHS problem and neither will private insurance. There needs to be some hybrid system where the user supplements central funding. Will it lead to a two, or more, tier system? - possibly but we have that now to some extent.

The biggest problem is that to change, in particular, NHS funding is political suicide for whichever party tries to do it.

Hi David, whilst I understand increased taxes to pay for healthcare wouldn’t sit well from the political perspective, I do think people understand that NHS can’t carry on the way it is…no one wants to pay more in tax but given the alternative I think many/most would agree and get used to what could mean significant increases in a ring-fenced NHS tax…subject to your tax band threshold.

The way that it was introduced to the taxpayer would determine its success or failure…perhaps a 4% increase over 4 years with a re-nationalised lottery to help with the initial shortfall?

[Onelife]

Great minds Ray…

[david63]

The way that it was introduced to the taxpayer would determine its success or failure

That is true, but no matter how it was presented to the taxpayer there would be massive opposition.

perhaps a 4% increase over 4 years

It would need to be significantly more than that - more like 20%

a re-nationalised lottery

The Lottery has never been nationalised so it cannot be "re-nationalised" - and if you did that where would all the other charities/good causes get their money?

[Stephen]

I certainly have nothing to complain about from the service the NHS has given us. As the waiting list continue to grow, unfortunately some people have to endure poor health and pain until they get an appointment. It is going to take a long time to get the waiting time down to a manageable level.
Would it really be political suicide if a government guarantee a tax would actually go to the health service? Which party would chance it.

It's a vicious circle Ray.
A struggle to get a GP appointment, then if your referred an even longer wait. And if you then need treatment/surgery, who knows. I'm surprised the country is still running.

[david63]

A struggle to get a GP appointment, then if your referred an even longer wait. And if you then need treatment/surgery, who knows

A lot of that could be streamlined. This is a system that was created 70 years ago and is not fit for purpose. GP's are a joke since Covid - not sure why they have not got their act together.

If you have a problem then there could be an online triage system (there already are some small scale ones around) which decides where you need to go and makes the appointment there and then cutting out unnecessary appointments. If you have, say, a bad knee currently you have to see your GP who refers you to a specialist who decides that you need tests/scans who then decides what treatment you require. No reason why you cannot go straight to the tests/scans.

One of the things that the NHS can do now is reduce wastage and cut out some of the rules that create indirect costs.

[Stephen]

Can't disagree with that David as I'm fully aware of the hoops you need to go through to get a knee sorted out.

[barney]

I must confess that when my knee needed a replacement, I went private. At the time, it cost about 7k or if you like, a couple of two week cruises.
I was working for myself and had it all done to fit in with my time scale.
I could afford it, but equally I know quite a few, a family member included who can easily afford it but choose not to.
My brother is often in a terrible state but when I suggest that he should just pay to get it fixed, his response is ‘why should I have to?’
Of course I reply that you don’t have to, it’s a choice on what you spend your money on.
He can easily afford it but won’t pay out of principle.
So, his principal keeps him in agony.
Strange attitude to life if you ask me.
Every person who can afford it and goes private frees up a place for those who can’t afford it.
It could be seen as a moral obligation.

[Ray B]

Most strange but understandable. It could mean a few years before he is called of enduring pain but it is the choice you take.

[Manoverboard]

Every person who can afford it and goes private frees up a place for those who can’t afford it.
It could be seen as a moral obligation.

Our Doctor would if needs be refer either of us to a specialist and we would tell him to give us an open referral because our choice is to go private. He would then defend the NHS but not any more because Mobietta said ... " If we go private it frees up a place for those who need to use the NHS "

He smiled, thanked and agreed with her

[Onelife]

The way that it was introduced to the taxpayer would determine its success or failure

That is true, but no matter how it was presented to the taxpayer there would be massive opposition.

perhaps a 4% increase over 4 years
[/quote]It would need to be significantly more than that - more like 20%

a re-nationalised lottery

The Lottery has never been nationalised so it cannot be "re-nationalised" - and if you did that where would all the other charities/good causes get their money?

It would indeed, hence the reason I should have said per year.

With regard to the lottery, I was suggesting (not very well obviously) that it is taken back into public ownership… with a large proportion of lottery funds going to the NHS. As for other charities and good causes, scrape the Monarchy and use the wasted money on something that makes a real difference to people’s lives .

[oldbluefox]

If you scrapped the monarchy it's likely you wouldn't save anything as their place would be taken by a President as Head of State. You would more than likely to be out of pocket on all the trade the Royal family help to promote not forgetting all the charitable organisations who rely on their support and influence in promoting their cause.

[Onelife]

If you scrapped the monarchy it's likely you wouldn't save anything as their place would be taken by a President as Head of State. You would more than likely to be out of pocket on all the trade the Royal family help to promote not forgetting all the charitable organisations who rely on their support and influence in promoting their cause.

I see no reason why any head of state needs such lavish dwellings such as Buckingham Place and certainly not the other dwelling that your present head of state has the keys to.

I’m not so sure that their patronage makes a lot of difference these days especially where trade is concerned, I’m also not convinced it makes much difference to charities and such…. I mean, I wouldn’t go out of my way to buy a pork pie just because it has the royal stamp of approval on it…would you?

[Onelife]

If members have a SPARE ten minutes, I think you will find this an interesting read…then again?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... en-murdoch

It will in my opinion be a great miscarriage of justice if his claim gets thrown out on a technicality…the truth needs to be seen to be done.

[oldbluefox]

Buckingham Palace belongs to the state. The majority of the Palace consists of State Rooms where heads of state are entertained so they would still be used even if you abolished the monarchy.
From what I know of the royal family their private quarters do not share the same opulence, actually they are very good at recycling.
As for trade they are hugely influential in promoting UK Inc., the same influence they bring to the hundreds of charities they support.
No I would not buy a pork pie just because it has the royal stamp of approval on it but that's a trivial example and I think you know that.

[oldbluefox]

If members have a SPARE ten minutes, I think you will find this an interesting read…then again?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... en-murdoch

It will in my opinion be a great miscarriage of justice if his claim gets thrown out on a technicality…the truth needs to be seen to be done.

Sick of hearing from the odious character. I thought he wanted out of the limelight. He should have followed the Queen's advice.