Do you lot all make over 80k like? Am I the only one making anywhere near the national average? I have to say I think I've worked pretty hard myself, and I don't stand a chance of making more than 80k in the job I'm working.
I don't earn anywhere near that. Even with what I do earn I would happily pay out more if it meant the money would be used to support the NHS and those who need help. I strongly believe that as a whole we are only as well off as a society as the weakest among us. More needs to be done to get those who can afford it to pay more and those who don't work to get back into the workforce.
I am beyond the £80k line - but worked damn hard to get there (and still do). No real issues with paying a bit more, but don't want it frittered away on increasing levels of management etc within the services it is supposed to benefit. I genuinely think that things like the NHS and Infrastructure Management (roads, flooding, public construction etc) should be taken out of the hands of Govt and looked at independently - this would allow them not to be used as political footballs (as the NHS most definitely has this time) and also allow for longer term strategy and management. As a Civil Engineer, often working in flood risk/management etc I can see that short term Govt led solutions don't work - projects need a far longer "lifespan" than potentially any incumbent Govt that starts them off - change Govt, change policy - result, time and money wasted and we're no further forward. We need to get away from the short term, 5 year viewpoint - we need Statesmen/women and not Politicians - we have the likes of Corbyn, May and Farron - God help us...
I get what you are saying, and agree that all of our services suffer from being used as political footballs by people on all sides. There are a few myths out there about some of the causes of the problems though. While any organisation can always be made more efficient the NHS is the most efficient health service in the world (efficient not best) according to an international health organisation. Then a lot of people blame things like health tourism for draining services. Health tourism costs about £200 million a year. That is obviously a lot of money, but in the grand scheme of things that is how much it costs to run the health service for 15 hours. The problem is that we currently spend the smallest % of our GDP on the NHS than at any time since it was introduced. I suppose this comes back to what you were saying about politicising it. The 'facts' that receive headlines and attention are the ones that suit people's political aims. It would be good to have independent people running the service - as long as it was independent rather than private. Some of the greatest inefficiencies come from the parts of the process where people are trying to turn a profit rather than provide the best possible service.
I'm half way to 80K, not even 30 yet so Hopefully one day I'll get there, even if its through inflation! I agree to a degree about handing the NHS to an independent company, but it has to be managed properly. There is so much money wasted in the NHS (As with anything where the governments involved) managers in created jobs adding no value getting paid 80k + just to formulate spreadsheets. busy bodies do nothing jobs but pretend their busy to justify their role. Our local hospital spent hundreds of thousands employing an independent company to come in and tell them how to save money! One way would be to avoid cowboys like that. They then put the local director on gardening leave for a year even though she earnt over £200k a year. So that was well over £500,000.00 wasted in a relatively short period of time. A lot of the costs derive from the prices set to the hospital, cost for equipment and drugs, The Government allow drug companies to charge 1000x the price of production or even the private cost of the drug and award contracts to suppliers who then make a fortune out of tax payers money. The whole system needs striping down and starting again.
This is the kind of story I often hear about the NHS. I can guarantee if the money going into the NHS belonged to private investors and not the taxpayers, things would change pretty quickly. Or even partially privatising it, if one earns over said amount then they'll have to get health insurance to gain access to services.
And yet the NHS is far more efficient than the US system where the money already belongs to private investors?
I'd be fascinated to know what measure of efficiency this relates to - I completely agree that privatisation shouldn't occur, simply that it needs an independent, non-political management structure to deliver health care. I do a hell of a lot of work for Transport for London (TfL) - they have 11 levels of management. Announcement last week indicates that re-structuring is going to see 5 of those going the distance to allow them to save money and deliver more efficiently. Somehow I suspect that trains will still run on time and projects will be delivered despite losing nearly 50% of the management structure
We should take a leaf from the Tory education policy and have a selective health service, with really nice hospitals which only the healthy can access. Problem solved!
I don't know the details of the report, only that there was massive criticism of the extra bureaucracy of the extra administration and costs incurred once insurance companies got involved. Its amazing how little of the total health budget goes to actual healthcare in those systems.
In the US, one would sue in the event a patient was left out in a corridor. Edit: Having said that, each state is different.
The real danger is profit becomes the principle aim of the organisation rather than the wellbeing of their 'customers'. Standards of care could quickly fall. Drug companies will charge what they charge regardless IMHO so I don't think privatisation will affect that. They will still give golden handshakes/parachutes to sacked executives. There has been 'crisis in the NHS' my entire life. Whenever I've used it though I get good service. I'm not saying things don't go wrong or things can't be improved but I don't buy the line from the media and politicians who are forever trotting out the word 'crisis'.
Cost per capita or 'bang for your buck' if you like by country: please log in to view this image You can see the private healthcare element in the US is costing them vastly more per capita than anyone else.
I like your thinking! .... but they wouldn't ever apply that to transport/energy/food/infrastructure ...oh wait
People who can afford lawyers would sue. Then again, people who can afford lawyers rarely get left in corridors.
They spend more per person than any other country, and yet still don't offer universal care to the whole population.
Whilst I agree that the parent should take care of their child it isn't the fault of children that they may have feckless parents and the free school meal may be the only proper meal they get. Also, it's not just "lazy" parents. Circumstances can change after you had the children, again the child should not suffer as a result.
Nobody can ever be sure that their circumstances will never change for the worse. Also, no contraceptive method is 100% safe. Do we ban poor people from having sex??
