We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
GDP, the NHS and life expectancy

michaels
Posts: 29,133 Forumite


International comparisons and historical data show a strong correlation between gdp and life expectancy.
Similarly the NHS has to make life and death decisions every day about what life saving treatments are affordable given a limited budget.
As gdp increases over time we are able to spend more money on the NHS and therefore keep more people alive for longer.
Thus any political decision that was believed to be likely to severely reduce gdp would likely result in less nhs funding and more deaths than otherwise.
In govt and the nhs policy makers have to make real decisions each day: perhaps considering the life of 10 cancer patients who could benefit from gene therapy or 1m children who could be vaccinated against meningitis.
If you were pretty certain leaving the eu would lead to a 5% reduction in gdp presumably you could come up with a crude number of the patients the resulting reduction in nhs spending would result in going untreated. Given those potential deaths, what lengths would you go to make sure that remain win the referendum?
Similarly the NHS has to make life and death decisions every day about what life saving treatments are affordable given a limited budget.
As gdp increases over time we are able to spend more money on the NHS and therefore keep more people alive for longer.
Thus any political decision that was believed to be likely to severely reduce gdp would likely result in less nhs funding and more deaths than otherwise.
In govt and the nhs policy makers have to make real decisions each day: perhaps considering the life of 10 cancer patients who could benefit from gene therapy or 1m children who could be vaccinated against meningitis.
If you were pretty certain leaving the eu would lead to a 5% reduction in gdp presumably you could come up with a crude number of the patients the resulting reduction in nhs spending would result in going untreated. Given those potential deaths, what lengths would you go to make sure that remain win the referendum?
I think....
0
Comments
-
-
Futurama got it right.
You don't need to keep whole people alive, just their head.
Imagine just how many workers you could have in the City then!
I suppose the downside is when EasyJet stuff you in the baggage department on your annual vacation0 -
The NHS budget is a political decision.
It has very little or nothing to do with GDP.
What the "managers" do with that budget is what managers do. If you appoint managers then you have to leave them to manage.
If you run or allow to run two systems side by side (Public and Private) do not be surprised there are conflicts, duplication, dilution and confusion.There will be no Brexit dividend for Britain.0 -
last year our GDP went up by an 'extra ' 1.5% due to including sex work and some other changes to bring us into line with international systems
Does this mean that our life expectancy increased too?0 -
-
The NHS budget is a political decision.
It has very little or nothing to do with GDP.
I don't agree - obviously at the limit it can not exceed 100% of GDP by definiton but in reality there needs to be other productive activity to support the taxation needed for health spending. I have no doubt that had the economy not suffereed the sharp credit crunch recession we would be spending more on health now even if the share of GDP was similar just because gdp would have been higher.
So trading off a single life in order to prevent a fall of 5% in GDP and hundreds or thousands of deaths due to reduced health spending seems like a reasonable trade off doesn't it? And if that death were also to prevent world war 3 and an existential threat to the nation then what politiican in good conscience could not make the unpleasant decision?I think....0 -
I don't agree - obviously at the limit it can not exceed 100% of GDP by definiton but in reality there needs to be other productive activity to support the taxation needed for health spending. I have no doubt that had the economy not suffereed the sharp credit crunch recession we would be spending more on health now even if the share of GDP was similar just because gdp would have been higher.
So trading off a single life in order to prevent a fall of 5% in GDP and hundreds or thousands of deaths due to reduced health spending seems like a reasonable trade off doesn't it? And if that death were also to prevent world war 3 and an existential threat to the nation then what politiican in good conscience could not make the unpleasant decision?
What's the connection between GDP and taxation?
The credit crunch was the start of a correction. After a boom built on debt. Resolving the debt question is as yet unanswered.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards