Our National Debt

rtho782

The thing is if there are 20 years between generations, and retirement is now pushing 30 years long, there are actually 2 generations of each family retired at once.

It's too much. Pension age needs to be raised, retrospectively even, DB pensions need to be slashed, etc.

All these things were designed for a 5 year retirement not a 30 year retirement.

iltisman

This should be mandatory viewing for all the moaning cuts brigade.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-9tUqeZCAI

Looking at that especially the 6.00mins in bit shows that dole and the NHS just has to go .

thor

The_Last_Username wrote: »

A little more recently and regarding savings, see:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71933724#Comment_71933724

There you go, another £6.2 billion potential saving for the NHS to go with the £6 billion or so already discussed and look!

To be fair that 6.2 billion does not represent a cut to the nhs budget though does it? It's merely collecting on a bill that everyone will agree the nhs should be going after. For this though you will need additional managers as I suspect doctors are neither willing or qualified to chase up such debts so it may require extra spending in order to recoup this money.

StevieJ

rtho782 wrote: »

The thing is if there are 20 years between generations, and retirement is now pushing 30 years long, there are actually 2 generations of each family retired at once.

It's too much. Pension age needs to be raised, retrospectively even, DB pensions need to be slashed, etc.

All these things were designed for a 5 year retirement not a 30 year retirement.

Can I take it as read that you do not have a DB pension?

wotsthat

Filo25 wrote: »

Well the fully privatised model doesn't exactly have an amazing track record of delivering efficient outcomes either.

The American system involves more private sector involvement than many and is a shambles in terms of its expense and in failing to provide universal coverage.

Granted but we'll never get anywhere if the only privatised model of the NHS is automatically assumed to be the American system.

I have an idea that if people had to open their wallets at the point of receiving care there would be a cue that healthcare isn't 'free'. Extrapolating, people might then be able to take responsibility for reducing their personal healthcare costs via good health decision making i.e. lower costs and better health.

I realise I'm probably being massively naive but I know that if my MIL had to pay £10 per GP visit she wouldn't be there nearly every week.

Filo25 wrote: »

Personally I don't get mammothly excited about how much public and private sector involvement there is as long as it delivers universal care and reasonable value for money, I don't think Health is an area where any of us could make blanket statements that the private sector could deliver more efficient outcomes.

Providing high quality healthcare is bloody expensive and in the UK we spend less than many Western countries, so I have yet to be convinced that the crisis down to relative inefficiency so much as the challenges of paying for healthcare and social care for an aging population.

That's not to say there aren't efficiency savings to be found, there are and they should be identified and implemented where necessary, realistically though those "savings" should be used to help address the funding gap in the service, rather than cutting the budget

I think the NHS offers very poor value for people who are relatively fit and healthy. It's hard to get a decent time for an appointment and if you've got a bad back, for example, you're wasting your time anyway.

I think the only real crisis is the aging population has highlighted just how much people dislike paying for other people's healthcare.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

wotsthat wrote: »

I think the NHS offers very poor value for people who are relatively fit and healthy. It's hard to get a decent time for an appointment and if you've got a bad back, for example, you're wasting your time anyway.

I think the only real crisis is the aging population has highlighted just how much people dislike paying for other people's healthcare.

And that is a problem with perception you see.

Here am I in the middle of my life, having never been hospitalised and only very rarely even seeing my GP.
I have paid from various taxes throughout my working life and - as you suggest - have in fact received very poor value from the NHS.

So far.

Statistically as I age I am more-likely to need the services of the NHS for any one of a large number of possibilities.
At such a time as that need arises I may be retired and hence (largely at least) be a non-contributor to NHS funding.
Yet I will have paid into the system all my working life.
Almost certainly a far greater sum* than many of working age who require NHS treatment of whatever sort and for whatever reason.

To suggest then that for some reason whatever treatment I may need in my dotage is unavailable to me or even restricted in any way based upon eligibility criteria of age and current contribution level is at best grossly unfair.


* As a percentage of earnings at least.

Filo25

If I had to pay to see my GP, I would probably go more often, wouldn't feel guilty about it anymore

The problem with paying for medical care of course is that those who are less well off may struggle to afford it and leave conditions untreated until they became more serious and more expensive to treat.

You also change the relationship between doctor and patient when payment gets involved, patients may in fact become even more demanding further treatment whether they need it or not, because they're paying for it, on top of adding more administrative costs to administer a more complex system.

I don't see other systems achieving universal coverage significantly cheaper, so once again am yet to be convinced that the issue is as simple as making people pay and the system will improve.

I would need to see a lot more evidence before I was in favour of payments for NHS usage.