Our National Debt

Thrugelmir

Jon_B wrote: »

Fundamentally, rather than continuously focussing on cuts. Maybe the government could look at how they could increase funding?

To be fair it is doing both. However to increase spending at an even faster rate. Then more tax revenue has to be raised. This coming week we'll have a good indication as to the likely amount raised during 2016/17. Likely to fall well short of the OBR's forecast for the year.

michaels

Jon_B wrote: »

Fundamentally, rather than continuously focussing on cuts. Maybe the government could look at how they could increase funding?

Are you aware that taxation as a share of gdp is at an all time high?

This is not widely published as it is uncomfortable for the Tories and obviuosly not something the opposition who wish to spend even more are likely to highlight.

I am not commenting on whether the gov should spend even more of the national output or not but it is worth thinking about when discussing whether there have been too many 'cuts'.

wotsthat

The_Last_Username wrote: »

There you go, another £6.2 billion potential saving for the NHS to go with the £6 billion or so already discussed and look!
We're at almost 10% of the NHS budget.
Are you still going to call the impact of these savings "ridiculously tiny"?
Probably not.
More likely that you are "sceptical".
Which is nothing more than belligerence.

And before you deride my post too I will tell you that I at least will not be drawn into argument, as you seem to so desire.

The idea that spending cuts of £12bn will be implemented in the NHS is fanciful.

People have been led to believe by poor politicians that spending is the all-important number that determines the quality of service. This view is reinforced in every manifesto and we even saw the brexit bus get in the act too.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

wotsthat wrote: »

The idea that spending cuts of £12bn will be implemented in the NHS is fanciful.

People have been led to believe by poor politicians that spending is the all-important number that determines the quality of service. This view is reinforced in every manifesto and we even saw the brexit bus get in the act too.

True but you're missing a few pertinent points:

Firstly it is certainly not more fanciful than some posters who imagine only miniscule savings are possible.

Secondly no one has suggested that such cuts "will be implemented", merely that the potential is there.

Finally yet again, who has recommended budget-cutting?
In fact I personally have professed a desire for increasing the budget.
What I DID say is that I would like to see the budget rationalised and directed towards need.

Politicians have indeed (and maybe even "are" with the current "crisis" agenda evident in media) "got in on the act" regarding the NHS.
Why?
Perhaps for reasons not too dissimilar to these:

Keep feeding the lines that something must change.
Prepare "the people" for change by showing aspects clearly not working, like A&E waits; effects of an increasing elderly and obese populace; bed-blocking; lack of social care; lack of mental health care etc. etc.
Keep telling the public how much the NHS is costing.
THEN when the time is deemed to be optimal, introduce major reform.

wotsthat

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

True but you're missing a few pertinent points:

Firstly it is certainly not more fanciful than some posters who imagine only miniscule savings are possible.

Secondly no one has suggested that such cuts "will be implemented", merely that the potential is there.

Finally yet again, who has recommended budget-cutting?
In fact I personally have professed a desire for increasing the budget.
What I DID say is that I would like to see the budget rationalised and directed towards need.

Politicians have indeed (and maybe even "are" with the current "crisis" agenda evident in media) "got in on the act" regarding the NHS.
Why?
Perhaps for reasons not too dissimilar to these:

Keep feeding the lines that something must change.
Prepare "the people" for change by showing aspects clearly not working, like A&E waits; effects of an increasing elderly and obese populace; bed-blocking; lack of social care; lack of mental health care etc. etc.
Keep telling the public how much the NHS is costing.
THEN when the time is deemed to be optimal, introduce major reform.

We can debate the potential size of prize and even think up scenarios whereby it might be implemented.

However, the only pertinent point is it'll never happen. After decades of being sold a line that more NHS spending is good it's hard to see a government which reduced it by 10% doing very well in the polls. Even today's Labour couldn't fail to make some hay.

What we'll more likely see is increased spend and lots of talk about rationalisation, efficiency savings, targeted spending etc. Things will get worse.

The 'free' model isn't working. It's encouraging waste and causing hypochondria. I'd prefer the whole thing was privatised but that's not going to happen either.

steampowered

The_Last_Username wrote: »

"my view on this..".
Which is simply not good enough.
From what we see your view is worth nothing; the only one "living in cloud-cuckoo land" is yourself.

The normal way of having a sensible discussion is to express an opinion; and then provide evidence for it. If it turns out that the evidence doesn't support your opinion, then you need to be prepared to change your opinion (rather than ignoring the evidence or attacking the person pointing it out).

Evidence matters and facts matter. It doesn't really matter which side of a debate you are on. We are on a "Debate" forum - if someone says something which is factually incorrect or misleading, they must expect to be pulled up on it. The same applies to me; I try to base my posts on the evidence but if someone is aware of contrary evidence I am delighted to reconsider.

The words "my view on this" were immediately followed by a link to the evidence for that view. The view was that the NHS budget is perfectly reasonable and does not need to be cut. The evidence was a link to a comparison showing that the UK spends less on healthcare than almost every other developed country.

There you go, another £6.2 billion potential saving for the NHS to go with the £6 billion or so already discussed and look!
We're at almost 10% of the NHS budget.
Are you still going to call the impact of these savings "ridiculously tiny"?

Wonderful - there we go, some actual evidence! Nice to see someone actually providing a source in this thread. I agree that the cost of providing healthcare to European nationals is a significant cost and could result in a significant potential saving if abolished.

I only say that savings "ridiculously tiny" when they are "ridiculously tiny". For example I would call the savings achieved by abolishing gender reassignment surgery (costing £17.13 million last year representing 0.015% of the NHS budget) ridiculously tiny.

Others too in this thread have explained where savings may be made yet you ignore them too, amongst them MyOnlyPost; Kabayiri; and Thrugelmir

I haven't rubbished or ignored anybody. All I am doing is looking at the suggestions people make against publicly available financial figures to put a number on how much of a saving could actually be made.

Sometimes the evidence supports people's suggestions, sometimes it doesn't. Don't shoot the messenger.

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Keep feeding the lines that something must change.
Prepare "the people" for change by showing aspects clearly not working, like A&E waits; effects of an increasing elderly and obese populace; bed-blocking; lack of social care; lack of mental health care etc. etc.
Keep telling the public how much the NHS is costing.
THEN when the time is deemed to be optimal, introduce major reform.

You've expressed a desire for "major reform" or something similar a number of times in this thread.

What does "major reform" mean?

A_Medium_Size_Jock

steampowered wrote: »

You've expressed a desire for "major reform" or something similar a number of times in this thread.

What does "major reform" mean?

major (adjective)

uk ​ /ˈmeɪ.dʒər/ us ​ /ˈmeɪ.dʒɚ/


major adjective (IMPORTANT)

​ B2 [ before noun ] more important, bigger, or more serious than others of the same type:

reform (verb) [ I or T ]

uk ​ /rɪˈfɔːm/ us ​ /rɪˈfɔːrm/


​ C2 to make an improvement, especially by changing a person's behaviour or the structure of something:

It doesn't matter what I say does it; you do not listen to me when I say

To make a comprehensive list would require time, patience - and much more space than this thread affords.

So have a look through these and get some ideas of what others think:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/27/the-nhs-will-simply-collapse-unless-politicians-have-the-courage/

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/09/the-doctors-strike-shows-why-the-nhs-needs-bold-reform.html

https://iea.org.uk/media/the-nhs-system-is-broken-and-needs-major-reform/

https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2017/jan/13/nhs-crisis-more-money-linked-reform

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/18/the-radical-blueprint-the-nhs-needs-to-survive-life-after-brexit/

http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/07/30/new-economic-policy-a-better-nhs/

There, that'll do to start you off and give you a few ideas of what's needed.

Filo25

wotsthat wrote: »

We can debate the potential size of prize and even think up scenarios whereby it might be implemented.

However, the only pertinent point is it'll never happen. After decades of being sold a line that more NHS spending is good it's hard to see a government which reduced it by 10% doing very well in the polls. Even today's Labour couldn't fail to make some hay.

What we'll more likely see is increased spend and lots of talk about rationalisation, efficiency savings, targeted spending etc. Things will get worse.

The 'free' model isn't working. It's encouraging waste and causing hypochondria. I'd prefer the whole thing was privatised but that's not going to happen either.

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.

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

Windofchange

The trouble with the NHS is we are always trying to cut the budget whilst making it do more. We have a rapidly growing and ageing population which just wasn't an issue back in the day. Retired at 65, dead at 70. We now have retire at 68 ish, dead at 105. The NHS doesn't need cuts. It doesn't need privatisation, although I wouldn't be 100% against the idea. What it does need is investment to allow it to effectively serve the population.

What do we have though. Cut training posts, cut bursaries for trainee nurses, physios etc. Short term savings at the expense of fixing things for the future. There were clearing posts in medicine last year for the first time ever! Jeremy Hunt, don't get me started. You know the real kick though to bring things back to this thread slightly. When the next banking crisis comes with the trillions of both secured and unsecured debt we are in, there will be a blank cheque book to bail out the 1%, yet we can't find the cash to help Doris stay warm this winter.

Thrugelmir

Windofchange wrote: »

The trouble with the NHS is we are always trying to cut the budget whilst making it do more. We have a rapidly growing and ageing population which just wasn't an issue back in the day. Retired at 65, dead at 70. We now have retire at 68 ish, dead at 105. The NHS doesn't need cuts. It doesn't need privatisation, although I wouldn't be 100% against the idea. What it does need is investment to allow it to effectively serve the population.

What do we have though. Cut training posts, cut bursaries for trainee nurses, physios etc. Short term savings at the expense of fixing things for the future. Jeremy Hunt, don't get me started. You know the real kick though to bring things back to this thread slightly. When the next banking crisis comes with the trillions of both secured and unsecured debt we are in, there will be a blank cheque book to bail out the 1%, yet we can't find the cash to help Doris stay warm this winter.

Lack of family support is the UK way these days.