Suggestions for Osborne's July budget

Generali

caronoel wrote: »

What specific areas would you suggest Osborne target in the July budget?

If he wants to get the deficit down then he can either raise taxes (generally a bad idea due to something called deadweight loss) or decrease spending. He is also likely to want to decrease spending for ideological reasons.

Basically the state in the UK spends money on two things: welfare and health. If the deficit is going to come down then savings have to be found in those areas.

I'd introduce a £1 charge to see the GP or to visit a hospital. It's amazing the difference between 'free' and 'not quite free'. I'd also look at forcing NHS unions to decide how to help square the circle. I've spent 20 years in the private sector and pretty much every year we're expected to work out a way to do more with less money.

How about the Government and the unions sit down. The Government tells the unions what the budget is going to be and the unions can help decide where savings are going to come from: lower wages, working more efficiently, more dead people.

I'd also time limit welfare for people who are able to work but can't find any.

caronoel

Generali wrote: »

I'd introduce a £1 charge to see the GP or to visit a hospital. It's amazing the difference between 'free' and 'not quite free'.

I'd fully agree with this, but go further with a £20 charge for hospital and £10 for GP visits (would need to be capped for repeat visits / follow up appointments.

It is far more costly to treat people in A&E than it is through their GP or local walk in centre, so there needs to be an incentive there for people to think before they pitch up at A&E.

Sadly, there is unlikely to be any political will to start charging anything for the NHS, which is a nonsense.

lisyloo

I wouldn't pay for screening (a lot of people don't need much excuse for the unpleasant types).
I thought the idea of free screening was to save money in the long run.

I think £10 is way too high as you're effectively denying healthcare for anyone struggling to make ends meet.

Generali

It doesn't really matter what the number is. As behavioural economics gains insight into behaviour we can see that there is a huge difference between 'free' and 'not free'. A far bigger difference than between 'not much' and 'hardly anything at all really'.

ukcarper

caronoel wrote: »

I'd fully agree with this, but go further with a £20 charge for hospital and £10 for GP visits (would need to be capped for repeat visits / follow up appointments.

It is far more costly to treat people in A&E than it is through their GP or local walk in centre, so there needs to be an incentive there for people to think before they pitch up at A&E.

Sadly, there is unlikely to be any political will to start charging anything for the NHS, which is a nonsense.

It's already at least £4 a visit in car park charges where I am.

michaels

Generali wrote: »

It doesn't really matter what the number is. As behavioural economics gains insight into behaviour we can see that there is a huge difference between 'free' and 'not free'. A far bigger difference than between 'not much' and 'hardly anything at all really'.

I suggested the option to pay a fee to queue jump at A&E and possibly for on the day GP appointment in another thread, it didn't garner much support....

lisyloo

Terrible idea for front line services. Urgency should be purely based on clinical need.

ukcarper

michaels wrote: »

I suggested the option to pay a fee to queue jump at A&E and possibly for on the day GP appointment in another thread, it didn't garner much support....

I wouldn't be keen on that but I think a fine for just not turning up at an appointment would be OK.

lisyloo

I know there has been another thread on this but we should do something radical with housing.
Build some shared accommodation for the long term unemployed outside expensive areas. It should be clean and safe, but you don't get spacious, luxury, privacy or choice of location off the state if you're able to work.
If you have to move - tough - that's what people in work do.

I have great compassion for those who cannot work for health related reasons and they should be entitled to a lot more than those who have made choices (including family planning choices) to put themselves in a position where the cannot work.

princeofpounds

The idea of a small charge to nudge behaviour is great in theory.


But you know what will happen - it will never be collected from or enforced on those who drain the system the most.


Those people will either be too senile, too addicted, too incapable of personal financial management, or just too selfish.


And the system will let them off, just like it currently does with anyone asked to pay a penalty out of benefits.