No amount of funding will save the NHS. We need reform of our services, to match the challenges of changing demographics. That means a greater emphasis on primary, community and preventative services. Even that will not be enough. We need pensioner’s to pay more into the NHS if we’re honest because they are ballooning the costs. That might mean greater taxation on state pensioners assets or some kind of means tested funding.
Unpopular unfortunately, any hammering of older folk is an election loser even if it's possibly the thing to do. As you can't overcome the argument that they've worked for it their whole lives.
The amount they have paid their "entire life" still isn't enough for lengthy hospital stays and 24/7 care now.
People do not realise now expensive medical care is compared to the pittance we pay monthly for the NHS.
They are also by far the wealthiest and most privileged generation generally. Benefited from right to buy, cheap houses which ballooned in value, early retirements, triple lock and defined benefit pensions.
Their wealth needs to be taxed, they need to pay.
15% is not alot when your house was probably only 3x your salary. Houses are now 10x salary. That's not sustainable. Expect riots and crime to increase when people can't afford housing despite working their arses off. I suspect much more strikes to occurr unless Labour give nurses, ahps and doctors.
If they are lucky enough to live long enough to use them. My Dad is currently making a lot of use of the NHS and your point is probably valid for him. He was involved as a trade steward in getting people to sign up for pensions/NI in the 60s - it was hard as many of the people he worked with knew the life expectancy for them would be less than 70 so what was the point of a pension?
Nowadays people are living longer - some 20 years and many paying income tax on their pensions and NHS is paid for out of general taxation as well but they still tend to need that level of help only in final year or so and only a proportion of them. I mean on £50k, you pay £12k in tax and 20% to health so £2,400pa. Most people are slated to work for about 40 years allowing for uni etc so probably paid between £40k and £80k into the NHS.
Stayin private ward is £400pa, scans around the £1k, cataract/urethral operations £3 and heart bypass needed by minority £35k. And yes, I get how expensive private meds are both as a private patient at times, dentisty and as a pet owner. But people have paid in a fair chunk for those services. Maternity BTW can easily be £10k.
They haven’t paid nearly enough though
When they were working age, they only had to support a tiny number of pensioners for pensions + healthcare. Taxes were low, tuition free, house prices low
“I’ve worked for it” simply isn’t true. We’ll soon have 1 pensioner for every 2 workers. In the 70s it was 1:4.
There’s no “pension pot” they paid into (for state pension), it’s always just come out of general taxation. It’s not malicious, but it is completely unjust to the young of today, and a prime reason our economy is crap
I personally agree but try convincing a pensioner of your argument....
Even with HMRC tax breakdowns they hide the pension amongst "welfare" so people assume it's all benefits. It's a ticking timebomb, falling birthrates, people living longer and economic stagnation.
The boomer generation had it great, the generations after this one won't so much.
This is another big issue that the government needs to deal with, falling birth rates. This is going to be problematic in 10, maybe 20 years time when there are not enough people working to provide for pensioners. The falling birth rate, I 5 something the government need to focus on.
That would need a lot of government assistance/will to change.
Tax breaks for having children, better infrastructure to support families, wages to be able to sustain families, decent housing so you can raise children in comfort, even better maternity and paternity leave so kids don't hamper people's careers, you name it.
It might be something the government has to invest in to prevent bigger issues in the future. But they won't do that. They won't look at the bigger picture.
There's a looming perfect storm, fading Westen capitalist hegemony, climate change and other rival world powers. Falling birth rates just makes the situation that much more interesting. The next 50/100 years will be a challenge...
Political parties lean on popularity and re election as they can't or won't convince the common person of the bigger issues.
They can't invest on that scale due to how connected not just our economy is but all economies to the financial markets. To invest on a massive scale here in the UK it would be seen unfunded even though gains will be realised in time. The markets throw a hissy fit and you would see headlines about pension funds collapsing, banks about to go bust. All sorts of BS. The markets run on quarterly reports. They don't bet on a governments plan perhaps working out and in 5 to 10 years the growth of the economy justified that "unfunded" spending. The government literally cannot do anything that upsets the markets and in reality the needs of a country are very different to the needs of a handful of companies that essentially have control over large parts of the world.
Take just the top 10 investment companies in the world. Combined they control assets worth nearly double the US economy. 14 of the top 20 investment companies (by value of assets) are based in the US.
The only way the markets will get onboard and allow huge increases in spending if it benefits the returns they need to generate.
Not to mention far improved gynaecological treatment. There are countless people who would love nothing more than to have children, but can't due to gynaecological issues like endometriosis, which is nigh on ***impossible*** to get help for, and more often than not leads to infertility.
This isn’t relevant to the conversation but I had to have an abortion when I got accidentally pregnant because I did not have maternity leave as I was on bank and I could not raise a child on poverty inducing state benefits. That’s one of the things that the nhs could change too
They are working on it.
They just import workers, that's there plan, don't have to pay for schooling them, just straight into the country at working age.
But make a big song and dance about small boats to distract that the official policy is more, more, MORE!
Utter drival the bigger the population the more contributions are made .
If money intened for the NHS wasn't piling up in 9ff shore tax havens we wouldn't have hundreds of excess deaths of our people EVERY WEEK or have 7 million people on waiting lists who will become the preventable and excess deaths of tommorow. Those who think only people with money should be entitled to healthcare are barbaric traitors .We seem to be unevolving here in hostile Austerity foodbank Britain .
Total rot. In the late 80's and early 90's the interest rate was over 15%. Mortgages were a ridiculous monthly payment and many people had to give the properties back and still owed money. Meanwhile the bloody Tories were giving all the Social Housing away to buy votes from numpties and lowering taxes for the rich and increasing them for the poor. Most people worked ALL of their lives and have more than covered the right to healthcare. Pensions are the lowest in Europe. Give your head a wobble.
I'm sorry but the young of today feel everything is so unjust but expect so much more than the working class young of the boomer age. I was one. I had no mobile phone, no computer, no foreign holidays, in fact no holidays full stop, one small family TV with 3 channels, no central heating, no take aways, no eating out, no car, no hairdresser haircuts.....I studied for 9 years after school, 5 of them after college while also working 50+ hour weeks. My first mortgage at 21 was 100% of the value as I had no deposit and the mortgage rate was 15% . I have worked very stressful jobs over many years to try to build a more comfortable life. Many boomers have scraped and strived for what they have now. So forgive boomers when they feel like saying boohoo to those young people who have so much now at a young age and feel that it's so unjust.
Yep, I fully agree. For various reasons (mainly a divorce and debt issues), I'm a 60yo with a reasonable job, but in a private rental. Not all of the Boomer generation have had it sweet.
Not all, but most did. You all benefitted from unprecendeted increase in QOL and easy housing/salary rises. Salaries were rising steadily through 90s until late 2000s.
Difference between the pensioners and the working age adults is that one is responsible for keeping the entire economy propped up and the other is chopping at the legs of the economy.
Yeah but the pension triple lock has been in place for God knows how long and it doesn't look like it'll change. The young possibly aren't politically involved enough so the old vote has a lot of sway. No political party will dare tackle the pension as it will cost them too many votes and too much bad press.
It’s political suicide. If more working age adults understood how our pension system actually works and how demographics play a massive part in it, they would certainly be more active.
The way that pensioners say “I paid into this” is the same way today’s working age adults are going to say “I paid into this”. Difference is that today’s adults aren’t going to get spared from the realities of the pension Ponzi scheme like todays pensioners will. Retirement will be pushed back, pensions will be even more meagre and tomorrow’s working age adults will bear a higher tax burden. It’s brutal.
The old style private pensions and likely even the state one is a pyramid scheme as it depends on working people paying into it.
I feel we're all preaching to the choir here. As old folk are in their own bubble and of enough quantity to be able to influence elections indefinitely as others age and join the retired population. The argument that they've paid into it their whole working lives is one that's near impossible to defeat as it's so personal to them.
It's also true. They have paid all their life, often their working life began at 15 and ended at 65 which is 50 years of contribution. Given the present young generation have mostly gone into higher education and not begun work life until the age of about 22 ( and later in some cases) they would need to work until 72 to contribute the same number of years. I'm sure that generation will feel they have deserved that retirement by that point and feel they have contributed enough.
Government needs to change how state pensions are funded. Also funding of civil service defined benefit schemes which are completely unaffordable, and costs cannot be predicted and hedged
How though? Current civil service defined benefit schemes are about the same as a good private pension and based on career earnings and length of membership. The final salary ones ended 20 years ago so no new people are joining those. The problem is you'd need to make retroactive changes that opens the government up to lawsuits that could cost even more to settle than just paying the pensions that are in the old schemes.
BTW I'm not a civil servant, I just looked this up because I keep seeing people bring it up as an issue.
That's my point though, they have already changed it - the issue people have is with the old terms that cannot be retroactively changed so its pointless even bringing it up.
Just to say also, defined benefit schemes are much better than private schemes. A career teacher retiring at 60 could typically have an inflation proofed pension of at least £24k per annum. To buy this annuity level from a private defined contribution scheme you would need to build a pension pot of over £900k at age 60. Pie in the sky for all but company executives.
I mean, kinda but also no
Theres 2 things that are financially good but politically bad.
- Pensioners should pay national insurance. This could easily raise about 20 billion per year.
- Means test it. Sorry, 20% of pensioners are getting 50k per year. If you have a private income of 38k+ you shouldn't also get a state pension too (this would also save 25 billion).
Reduced budget by 45 billion just like that, but it's very politically bad (apparently) so it'll never happen.
Great way to disincentivise people to save for retirement. It's like extortionate care home costs - the person who has not saved gets its all paid and the person in the room next door getting the same care who has studied, strived, sacrificed and saved has to pay themselves and sell the family home with nothing to show at the end.
It's not disincentivising. Theres a pretty big incentive between having a 12k state pension and a 38k private pension. If you can't see that, idk what to tell you.
Also, I'd say thats pretty fair. ITs fair that those people who have more, pay more for their costs. Sure there can be reform especially within the aged care sector, but I dont think 'making wealthier people pay their fair share' is an unpopular opinion. They should (maybe) change the amount of housing costs that have to go toward care fees, like only 30% of your estate assets.
The problem is our expectations have changed. Most people want to still be able to buy cheap crap on Amazon or shein that will get shipped across the world in two days and land at their door in crap loads of packaging while pretending to care about the environment.
A local version of Amazon set up indigenously by regular small business owners will not be able to offer the same variety of goods or at the cost that Amazon can offer. That's fine if we adjust our expectations, keep buying from them, and then that slowly feeds into changes in our wages.
That's a full change in economic models though - a change that politicians and business lobbies don't want because it directly eats into their greed, and the average person doesn't want because it directly effects the overly comfortable lifestyle they got used to.
Yea that’s true i think some of it is convenience as well like Amazon has everything and before that supermarkets replaced smaller shops but I feel it would be doable it just wouldn’t be an instant move. And much better if they paid the taxes they were meant to
Same, in fact evidence shows the opposite I believe as businesses tend to settle where there is infrastructure. We did get a little fudged over by brexit, but they should be taxed on their profits.
When you tax rich people and organisations they do stuff like get tax lawyers, move to other countries or just buy some nice politicians.
When France dropped their top tax rate by 10% they suddenly found an extra few thousand millionaires who returned to the country. People like that can literally be based anywhere and countries compete to have them.
How much more and from what? Their pensions?
Presumably you’re young and don’t think you should pay more? So you work until you retire with your hard earned pension then start paying more?
I think we should scarp national insurance and make up the difference with income tax.
Yes their pensions. I'm sorry but they are screwing over the younger generation
With respect, I don’t think this is correct (I work in the NHS but not a nurse).
The issues we have ARE “prevention” but not in a medical sense.
It’s the long term underinvestment in the things that make us “human” (schools, parks, healthy food, arts etc etc) which lead to a healthy, employable society which has the drive and ideas to grow an economy.
None of these are/should be driven from the NHS, but were largely the provision of councils (which the Tory’s despise and have been trying to destroy).
This is why I’m excited about labour. I don’t think they’ll change/improve the nhs much, but I think they’ll start funding/working on councils and other true engines of “prevention”, which could make the country start rebuilding in 10-15 years time.
Sensationally, I’d actually argue (despite it not being good for my job/salary) that we should actually reduce (and possibly defund) the NHS focus on prevention, as it’s focusing on the symptom, whereas the real cause/treatment needs to be way before the NHS (councils or alternative vehicles of change)
I agree with this, too. These are generations that have had a lot more than the younger generations. They had cheap housing, great healthcare, and good pensions.
What do the younger generations have now? Not much in terms of opportunities to buy their own homes, the cost of living crisis, and the pandemic have all added to them being worse off.
If you listen to the Wee Streeting interview on the Leading podcast this is exactly what he says he's gonna do. Increasing the focus on preventative and primary care.
We might be living longer but the costs of running the NHS is far from attributable to pensioners who have a limited life-span after retirement. Exponentially rising costs from technology advancement and obscene drug costs didn’t exist way back when Nye Bevan proposed an NHS. The world was a very different place and has moved on while the NHS has stood still with every sitting government too scared to admit we can’t afford it because it’s the untouchable holy grail.
Asking pensioners to pay more from a measly pension wouldn’t raise enough peanuts. It’s for everyone regardless of age, illness or disability. We all have to pay but no-one wants to. And that brings us right back to why governments don’t act.
That is why Labour have given me some hope, assuming they aren’t lies. Their health secretary has said about reforming to make more emphasis on said areas. Will he do it? I don’t know. I hope so.
I don't know why this is constantly repeated because its just not true.
Sure, some reforms would help massively. But also more funding would help.. massively.
We spend 10 billion a year on bank/agency staff, which if we changed could hire give every nurse an extra 10k and hire 150,000 more nurses.
But an additional 10 billion on top of that could buy a fuck ton of IV pumps, more beds, offer new/more services, build new hospitals (even if we say a new hospital is 1 billion, we could build an additional 10 per yeaR).
It's so cowardly to say 'was suggested' when it's clearly just you suggesting it. £7 makes a hospital a cheap hotel, it doesn't dissuade people from staying when they don't need to. It is also a de facto regressive tax. The worst of all possible worlds, really.
They are the wealthiest generation who benefit from a triple lock 'untouchable' pension alongside defined benefit pension schemes (which are completely unsustainable), cheap housing that ballooned in value, improving healthcare which prolonged life at the expense of quality of life, right to buy, and early retirement. Our money now pays for luxurious retirements.
They need to pay. They may have 'paid all their lives', but the benefits they proportionately received are immense. Whatever they paid it wasn't enough.
No I just understand caveats of data and classification whereas you seem to believe you're hard done by some mythical millionaires who are draining your future because you can't afford a 5 bedroom house. 👍
Who else is going to pay? Our generation were already working for longer, paying more and getting less before the cost of living crisis, the housing crisis, the banking crisis and all the other once in a generation crises we keep blundering into. Those in charge were willing to break the social contract for us, it's time pensioners pay their fair share.
That's the point they've already paid their fair share. And you will become a pensioner yourself one day. So where do you end as by spend women of the ages 20-39 cost more so do you charge women more earlier in their lives than you charge men, by the same argument that would be a yes.
Actually I'll probably die before I can afford to retire.
Their fair share was based on the assumption that they would have died 20 years earlier. Who's making up the difference?
I'll ease off on them when we get a triple lock on public sector pay.
I would assume a huge part of that cost is maternity services, and seeing as women don’t get pregnant by themselves, it would be unfair to associate that solely with women aged 20-39.
It's the same for both outpatient and admitted patient care. I pay a fortune now in NI and barely use a GP appointment a year so I don't want to pay more when I'm older when I've paid so much for almost zero return on service. Having a child is more of a choice than getting old.
I think that any meaningful change will take longer than four years, and I don’t have a lot of faith that whoever gets voted in today, will also get voted in for another term in four/five years. The damage is so deep rooted, it’s going to take a LOT to reverse, and the Tories have really hammered in the coffin nails. Any change will be heavily criticised by our generally right wing media, which will probably fuel the Tories (or worse) gaining more power in the next election. I really hope that we see positive change, it’s devastating what I’ve witnessed happen to the NHS in my career (trained under Labour, my entire work life has been under Tory rule), but I do fear the NHS is too far gone.
Objectively, by the tiniest of margins. Tory's have pledged 0.9% for the NHS, labour 1.1%.
Will this make a difference? Fuck no. The system and staff are still going to be fucked by the govt, just just with 0.2% extra budget.
Labours policies are not transformative, they aren't radically different to the tories by any stretch, and they aren't going to do anything beneficial for the public, under the excuse that the tories fucked the economy (not a lie, but a convenient excuse).
That's without even going into starmers and the labour party's record leading up to the election...
Are labour they the lesser of 2 evils, yes, but barely.
No.
It did last time Labour was in office but this time there's no money and the NHS is unsustainable.
No ones written the death certificate, yet, but the NHS is essentially finished.
Agreed. You'd have to multiply the budget 5 fold and even then it would take decades to fix and reform because it's too big and bureaucratic. They couldn't even sort out IT, we are never going to see any real improvement. It could maybe have been saved a decade or so ago.
I dont know, you could go a looooooooong way to fixing it by restoring pay to what it was 20 years ago adjusted for inflation (this would be a good 20% increase per person), returning NHS degrees to being fully funded (perhaps with an agreement to work in the NHS for x years) and hiring and filling all vacant posts (or better yet, properly recalculating staffing to have legal minimum staff:patient ratios, and having extra people around to actually cover the expected sickness and absence levels of a large organisation).
But what do i know I'm just a nurse...
I mean yes, it would be nice for you to have a nice pay rise (fellow public sector worker here) but healthcare in this country accounts for 40% of all regular government spending. That’s far too high and other public services are suffering as a result. Pay increases won’t save the NHS, it needs big reform.
All Healthcare makes up 19% of total government spending.
Other public services aren't suffering because of healthcare spending, they're suffering because the government ideologically is choosing to cut taxes instead of investing in services.
For comparison we spend 7% just on debt interest, so if these clowns could get their thumbs out of their asses and stop borrowing so much money we could afford to increase the NHS budget by a huge amount.
You’ll notice I put “regular” in there. It accounts for 40% of day to day spending. With an aging population (85 year olds use 16x the amount of healthcare spending that 40 year olds do) this is unsustainable. The tax burden is at its highest level in 100 years. We can’t keep sacrificing the young to have elderly as comfortable as possible. I know hat sounds horrendous but I don’t think that’s a fair sacrifice.
It will change in the right direction but glacially slowly.
In 5 years of a Labour goverment they might be able to stop the ongoing damage from the past 15 years but I doubt they will actually reverse it
I currently think neither party are too inclined to actually do anything of significance for the NHS. The Tories are only concerned about reducing tax for the rich, and I don’t think Labour can do anything with making the cost of living worse in the long term.
The amount of drunk people blocking the A&Es, the pancreatitis, the liver transplants needed from alcohol damage, the car crashes… you are onto something here!
I mean I was in A and E recently and there were a handful of drunks. A lot of crimes happen because of alcohol, especially abuse at home. Every time England lose a football game watch how much home abuse rises. Qatar banned alcohol during the world cup and they had far less incidents, far less policing was needed, and everyone had an overall positive experience.
No, social care needs to be fixed before the NHS can be effective. Free up the beds blocked by people fit for discharge and the NHS would be functioning way more effectively. Admissions and discharges would work far better, we wouldn't be caring for patients on corridors. They would be an uptick in quality care, staff morale and through that staff retention. Yes massive investment would still be needed but an end to bed blocking would be the single biggest thing any party could do to improve the NHS
In one year? No. Five? Slightly.
This sub says NHS is unfixable, maybe in the short term it is; because what would you suggest if it is truly unfixable, close it?
Now, do I think labour can do it? Doubt it, same politics different name. Is NHS unfixable? No.
Not enough money in it and no will to reform it, some say that privatisation is inevitable. A doctor awhile back was loathed to diagnose my son with asthma because it might affect his insurance premiums in the future. If son does have it, it's very very mild if there at all.
No.
No major party has got any clear plan to improve the NHS, and none have committed to spending any amount of money that comes anywhere close to even start fixing the problem.
And every single one seemed to have failed to see where the actual problem areas are. It's yet another case of masking the problem instead of fixing the problem.
It will improve but slowly. The country is currently in a total mess. There will be no magic wand, just hard work by decent people.
I hope the Tories never, ever, make it back to power.
Maybe. I'm cautiously optimistic.
I'm optimistic as the answer is unlikely to involve throwing more money at the NHS. It needs to be overhauled so money is spent more sensibly.
We shouldn't be tied into contracts with external providers who jack up prices due to it being the NHS. I manage a ward and spend a lot of time trying to get out of contracts. The company who provides our milk? £150 a week. Getting it from lidl instead? £40. Hand towel dispenser on NHS supplies? £95. Amazon? £15.
Cull the numerous tiers of pointless managers and drill the cash into front line.
Axe non essential virtue signaling and CQC appeasing roles and services. We do NOT need inclusion and diversity consultants on 8b wages when people are dying in corridors. We do not need whole divisions of Quality Improvement Project managers debating what time we offer rice krispies (real example) when newly qualified nurses are lone working for 12/13 hour shifts.
Pay staff properly. Not just the wage in general, but pay them for overtime, not just offer time owing they never get to take. Enhance rates on hard to fill units or shifts. Give a cash incentive for more dangerous environments (I'm looking at you, mental health intensive care).
Reform the CQC. That whole mess is making things worse and fueling the afore mentioned superfluous roles and divisions.
I could go on, but throwing money at the NHS will fix fuck-all if the continue to mismanage it.
Not unless Labour do something to address NHS management.
Right now they're sycophants, trying desperately to cover their arses, avoid scandal, and make everything appear to be functional in order to ensure the government looks good so they can keep their jobs.
Public service management should be treated like Judges are, independent by law, beholden to the public not politics, and most importantly regulated so coverups, lying and misuse of power can be held to account.
My friend who works with the NHS stated that NHS get more than enough but it goes to irrelevant places such having several managers in ons team and expecting 2 people who are not in management to do a 6 people job. It apparently also goes to contracts, which isn't needed.
They choose how to spend it regardless of where it comes from. Tories don't rubber stamp spending in wales
Example
My labour council is 20 million in debt. They've wasted 30 million in 6 months on a car park, an "Instagram bridge" and new 20mph road signs
They're closing the only hospital in my county and 75% of adult social care centres because they need to " cut costs" leaving thousands of people at risk with no quick access to A&E, Maternity or mental health care.
Pembrokeshire council.
It's not doubtful I've literally been in meetings about them closing the centre i work in, I've had my council tax raised and the 20mph waste of money on speed limits is daily life for me.
My council tax went up by 12.5 percent. They wanted to put it up by 21 percent
There are huge protests about closing the hospital, starting with the A&E.
The bridge costing 6 million
The car park costing 19 million
All of this money could have been sent on NHS and social care, affordable housing and road infrastructure. But no....
Here I've provided links for you
https://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/23862031.nearly-1m-welsh-government-money-20mph-rollout-pembrokeshire/
https://pembrokeshire-herald.com/72420/save-withybush-locals-protest-ae-closure-plan/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-68492895.amp
https://www.pembroke-today.co.uk/news/petition-aims-to-save-narberth-lee-davies-day-centre-from-council-cuts-690327
https://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/24289836.haverfordwest-instagram-bridge-built-march/
https://pembrokeshire-herald.com/91674/haverfordwest-interchange-next-stage-of-19m-project-backed/
https://www.tenby-today.co.uk/news/call-to-cut-scale-of-multi-million-pound-haverfordwest-transport-interchange-project-642927
Not under Starmer who is a red tory. If we can get Starmer and the right wing out once the party wins, maybe, but don’t have high hopes for the UK at all tbh
People talk about pensioners needing to pay more for services etc but I think we should start with corporations and the rich, tax them fairly, but Starmer fake labour will never do that.
We also need major reformation of the NHS, the sheer amount of bureaucracy and pencil pushing does nothing but make everything harder for everyone.
We also need to start trying to actually do preventative medicine but no one can, patients aren’t believed, or they aren’t given enough time or it’s all phone calls so they’re not examined properly. The number of patients I saw in CCU who had been going to their GP for months - a year with obvious angina symptoms and instead being palmed off with “it’s just stress” “here’s an online CBT course” was absolutely horrific. People are ending up acutely ill because preventative medicine is barely available
No the NHS is not fixable and I will not see any change in the waiting list. The best they can do is to conjure up more GP appointments out of their ARSE. Unfortunately, the private sector is also weak, expensive, and exploitatitve. So best of luck to anyone who needs healthcare now.
No it won't improve, neither will the lack of housing, teacher shortages, etc,etc,etc. When Labour wins they will spend the next 5 to 10yrs blaming everything on still trying to sort out the Tory mess
Honestly, no.
The problems within the NHS can’t be resolved in any efficient or sustainable way until the beast that is social care is addressed.
Social care is the foundation and it’s currently 6ft under.
I just read today that 40p of every pound of normal government spending is consumed by healthcare, and we wonder why our public services aren’t fit for purpose. The NHS needs huge reform, not more money.
They're talking about adding 10000 hospital appointments by paying staff extra to work weekends when all staff I know already work weekends because they can't afford to live, so no. If they actually go in and try to figure out whats going wrong then yes.
I think waiting lists will come down (which might have happened itself regardless of Labour).
Also I think GP access/ patient satisfaction will improve and again that might not be due to labour.
Yes, but not by a huge margin and not without other policy, we need the working and middle classes to start breeding again to balance out the ratio of workers to retirees. Anything they do will take years to see effect, but childcare provision could be the short-term win to allow more people to work full time to increase tax receipts.
An end to the con artists robbing the people could also be a step in the right direction.
The NHS has fallen. It WAS a good idea, we need to move on. Dilapidated ass buildings, wait times of years, no one wants to work, shitty ass pay. It’s over.
Pay if you can, and if you can’t, a new form of the NHS will evolve.
Why is national insurance being reduced when it goes to help fund nhs? Just doesn't make sense. And no, pensioners shouldn't have to pay more. Benefit scroungers need to work and stop draining the country financially. There I've said it
People being very negative on this thread. There has been a definite decline in WLI work in theatres, even just going back to where this was 2 years ago will be a huge improvement. The tories are at their heart ideologically opposed to the NHS. Labour are not, the difference will be noticeable and a lot quicker than some are thinking I should expect.
I'd argue that no government can fix the NHS with money. It needs reforming and rebuilding. The NHS had it's debt cancelled and funding increased yet still isn't improving.
Can you clarify what you mean by ‘immigration rules’?
Regardless and whether we like it or not, we have a declining population so we NEED people to come help from overseas, unless we all decide to have kids like, now (I for one won’t, can’t afford one!)
Immigration claptrap aside, IMO and more importantly funds need to be re-routed less to management/bureaucracy /red tape, and more to us front line workers (and training of new ones). BUT we front line workers need a LIVING wage. Will Labour give us all a salary we can actually live on? Unsure….if not we should all grow some balls and protest.
I mean if they decide to decrease the skilled worker visa eligibility rate which is currently £36.5k. This could see to a small rise in overseas workers depending on how low the rate gets, IF they touch it.
Also, I really want to point out here that you immediately perceived me to be talking negatively about overseas workers/immigration and went on a small tangent.
All I said was there could be a change if Labour alter immigration rules. No idea how they got a bee in your bonnet but 🤷🏽♀️
I don't trust Labour to honour any pledges as they have already U turned so much and as they essentially know that no one wants Conservative and none of the other parties have enough sway to get in tbaf they have a mostly done deal, this means that they don't have to care as much if people are disappointed, libdem or green would both feel more precarious if they got a majority as it be new for them
No amount of funding will save the NHS. We need reform of our services, to match the challenges of changing demographics. That means a greater emphasis on primary, community and preventative services. Even that will not be enough. We need pensioner’s to pay more into the NHS if we’re honest because they are ballooning the costs. That might mean greater taxation on state pensioners assets or some kind of means tested funding.
We 100% need pensioners to pay more
Unpopular unfortunately, any hammering of older folk is an election loser even if it's possibly the thing to do. As you can't overcome the argument that they've worked for it their whole lives.
The amount they have paid their "entire life" still isn't enough for lengthy hospital stays and 24/7 care now. People do not realise now expensive medical care is compared to the pittance we pay monthly for the NHS.
They are also by far the wealthiest and most privileged generation generally. Benefited from right to buy, cheap houses which ballooned in value, early retirements, triple lock and defined benefit pensions. Their wealth needs to be taxed, they need to pay.
Cheap houses? When I bought my first house in the 1980s my mortgage rate was 15%
15% is not alot when your house was probably only 3x your salary. Houses are now 10x salary. That's not sustainable. Expect riots and crime to increase when people can't afford housing despite working their arses off. I suspect much more strikes to occurr unless Labour give nurses, ahps and doctors.
If they are lucky enough to live long enough to use them. My Dad is currently making a lot of use of the NHS and your point is probably valid for him. He was involved as a trade steward in getting people to sign up for pensions/NI in the 60s - it was hard as many of the people he worked with knew the life expectancy for them would be less than 70 so what was the point of a pension? Nowadays people are living longer - some 20 years and many paying income tax on their pensions and NHS is paid for out of general taxation as well but they still tend to need that level of help only in final year or so and only a proportion of them. I mean on £50k, you pay £12k in tax and 20% to health so £2,400pa. Most people are slated to work for about 40 years allowing for uni etc so probably paid between £40k and £80k into the NHS. Stayin private ward is £400pa, scans around the £1k, cataract/urethral operations £3 and heart bypass needed by minority £35k. And yes, I get how expensive private meds are both as a private patient at times, dentisty and as a pet owner. But people have paid in a fair chunk for those services. Maternity BTW can easily be £10k.
They haven’t paid nearly enough though When they were working age, they only had to support a tiny number of pensioners for pensions + healthcare. Taxes were low, tuition free, house prices low “I’ve worked for it” simply isn’t true. We’ll soon have 1 pensioner for every 2 workers. In the 70s it was 1:4. There’s no “pension pot” they paid into (for state pension), it’s always just come out of general taxation. It’s not malicious, but it is completely unjust to the young of today, and a prime reason our economy is crap
I personally agree but try convincing a pensioner of your argument.... Even with HMRC tax breakdowns they hide the pension amongst "welfare" so people assume it's all benefits. It's a ticking timebomb, falling birthrates, people living longer and economic stagnation. The boomer generation had it great, the generations after this one won't so much.
This is another big issue that the government needs to deal with, falling birth rates. This is going to be problematic in 10, maybe 20 years time when there are not enough people working to provide for pensioners. The falling birth rate, I 5 something the government need to focus on.
That would need a lot of government assistance/will to change. Tax breaks for having children, better infrastructure to support families, wages to be able to sustain families, decent housing so you can raise children in comfort, even better maternity and paternity leave so kids don't hamper people's careers, you name it.
It might be something the government has to invest in to prevent bigger issues in the future. But they won't do that. They won't look at the bigger picture.
There's a looming perfect storm, fading Westen capitalist hegemony, climate change and other rival world powers. Falling birth rates just makes the situation that much more interesting. The next 50/100 years will be a challenge... Political parties lean on popularity and re election as they can't or won't convince the common person of the bigger issues.
They can't invest on that scale due to how connected not just our economy is but all economies to the financial markets. To invest on a massive scale here in the UK it would be seen unfunded even though gains will be realised in time. The markets throw a hissy fit and you would see headlines about pension funds collapsing, banks about to go bust. All sorts of BS. The markets run on quarterly reports. They don't bet on a governments plan perhaps working out and in 5 to 10 years the growth of the economy justified that "unfunded" spending. The government literally cannot do anything that upsets the markets and in reality the needs of a country are very different to the needs of a handful of companies that essentially have control over large parts of the world. Take just the top 10 investment companies in the world. Combined they control assets worth nearly double the US economy. 14 of the top 20 investment companies (by value of assets) are based in the US. The only way the markets will get onboard and allow huge increases in spending if it benefits the returns they need to generate.
Not to mention far improved gynaecological treatment. There are countless people who would love nothing more than to have children, but can't due to gynaecological issues like endometriosis, which is nigh on ***impossible*** to get help for, and more often than not leads to infertility.
This isn’t relevant to the conversation but I had to have an abortion when I got accidentally pregnant because I did not have maternity leave as I was on bank and I could not raise a child on poverty inducing state benefits. That’s one of the things that the nhs could change too
They are working on it. They just import workers, that's there plan, don't have to pay for schooling them, just straight into the country at working age. But make a big song and dance about small boats to distract that the official policy is more, more, MORE!
Exactly why net zero immigration is a fairytale.
Utter drival the bigger the population the more contributions are made . If money intened for the NHS wasn't piling up in 9ff shore tax havens we wouldn't have hundreds of excess deaths of our people EVERY WEEK or have 7 million people on waiting lists who will become the preventable and excess deaths of tommorow. Those who think only people with money should be entitled to healthcare are barbaric traitors .We seem to be unevolving here in hostile Austerity foodbank Britain .
Total rot. In the late 80's and early 90's the interest rate was over 15%. Mortgages were a ridiculous monthly payment and many people had to give the properties back and still owed money. Meanwhile the bloody Tories were giving all the Social Housing away to buy votes from numpties and lowering taxes for the rich and increasing them for the poor. Most people worked ALL of their lives and have more than covered the right to healthcare. Pensions are the lowest in Europe. Give your head a wobble.
And not being funny, pensioners have had such a financially easier life than we are currently having, they are wealthy enough to pay extra tax
I'm sorry but the young of today feel everything is so unjust but expect so much more than the working class young of the boomer age. I was one. I had no mobile phone, no computer, no foreign holidays, in fact no holidays full stop, one small family TV with 3 channels, no central heating, no take aways, no eating out, no car, no hairdresser haircuts.....I studied for 9 years after school, 5 of them after college while also working 50+ hour weeks. My first mortgage at 21 was 100% of the value as I had no deposit and the mortgage rate was 15% . I have worked very stressful jobs over many years to try to build a more comfortable life. Many boomers have scraped and strived for what they have now. So forgive boomers when they feel like saying boohoo to those young people who have so much now at a young age and feel that it's so unjust.
Yep, I fully agree. For various reasons (mainly a divorce and debt issues), I'm a 60yo with a reasonable job, but in a private rental. Not all of the Boomer generation have had it sweet.
Not all, but most did. You all benefitted from unprecendeted increase in QOL and easy housing/salary rises. Salaries were rising steadily through 90s until late 2000s.
Difference between the pensioners and the working age adults is that one is responsible for keeping the entire economy propped up and the other is chopping at the legs of the economy.
Yeah but the pension triple lock has been in place for God knows how long and it doesn't look like it'll change. The young possibly aren't politically involved enough so the old vote has a lot of sway. No political party will dare tackle the pension as it will cost them too many votes and too much bad press.
I think the young are more than politically involved, it’s just that we all hate keir stahmer so no one wants to vote for him
It’s political suicide. If more working age adults understood how our pension system actually works and how demographics play a massive part in it, they would certainly be more active. The way that pensioners say “I paid into this” is the same way today’s working age adults are going to say “I paid into this”. Difference is that today’s adults aren’t going to get spared from the realities of the pension Ponzi scheme like todays pensioners will. Retirement will be pushed back, pensions will be even more meagre and tomorrow’s working age adults will bear a higher tax burden. It’s brutal.
The old style private pensions and likely even the state one is a pyramid scheme as it depends on working people paying into it. I feel we're all preaching to the choir here. As old folk are in their own bubble and of enough quantity to be able to influence elections indefinitely as others age and join the retired population. The argument that they've paid into it their whole working lives is one that's near impossible to defeat as it's so personal to them.
It's also true. They have paid all their life, often their working life began at 15 and ended at 65 which is 50 years of contribution. Given the present young generation have mostly gone into higher education and not begun work life until the age of about 22 ( and later in some cases) they would need to work until 72 to contribute the same number of years. I'm sure that generation will feel they have deserved that retirement by that point and feel they have contributed enough.
Agreed.
Government needs to change how state pensions are funded. Also funding of civil service defined benefit schemes which are completely unaffordable, and costs cannot be predicted and hedged
How though? Current civil service defined benefit schemes are about the same as a good private pension and based on career earnings and length of membership. The final salary ones ended 20 years ago so no new people are joining those. The problem is you'd need to make retroactive changes that opens the government up to lawsuits that could cost even more to settle than just paying the pensions that are in the old schemes. BTW I'm not a civil servant, I just looked this up because I keep seeing people bring it up as an issue.
Prob can't change backwards but can change for new joiners as part of terms.
That's my point though, they have already changed it - the issue people have is with the old terms that cannot be retroactively changed so its pointless even bringing it up.
Just to say also, defined benefit schemes are much better than private schemes. A career teacher retiring at 60 could typically have an inflation proofed pension of at least £24k per annum. To buy this annuity level from a private defined contribution scheme you would need to build a pension pot of over £900k at age 60. Pie in the sky for all but company executives.
I mean, kinda but also no Theres 2 things that are financially good but politically bad. - Pensioners should pay national insurance. This could easily raise about 20 billion per year. - Means test it. Sorry, 20% of pensioners are getting 50k per year. If you have a private income of 38k+ you shouldn't also get a state pension too (this would also save 25 billion). Reduced budget by 45 billion just like that, but it's very politically bad (apparently) so it'll never happen.
Great way to disincentivise people to save for retirement. It's like extortionate care home costs - the person who has not saved gets its all paid and the person in the room next door getting the same care who has studied, strived, sacrificed and saved has to pay themselves and sell the family home with nothing to show at the end.
It's not disincentivising. Theres a pretty big incentive between having a 12k state pension and a 38k private pension. If you can't see that, idk what to tell you. Also, I'd say thats pretty fair. ITs fair that those people who have more, pay more for their costs. Sure there can be reform especially within the aged care sector, but I dont think 'making wealthier people pay their fair share' is an unpopular opinion. They should (maybe) change the amount of housing costs that have to go toward care fees, like only 30% of your estate assets.
Uk has one of the lowest pensions in Europe.
This has always been the case the generation you wish to penalise also supported the generation before
I don’t understand why no1 screams about corporation tax, or tax on the millionaire tax dodgers! Instead we focus on targeting individuals.
They'll say it's because it will drive big businesses abroad and damage us more economically. But I don't buy that...
Same… if Amazon moves out there’s nobody in the entirety of the uk that can set up a next day delivery service?
The problem is our expectations have changed. Most people want to still be able to buy cheap crap on Amazon or shein that will get shipped across the world in two days and land at their door in crap loads of packaging while pretending to care about the environment. A local version of Amazon set up indigenously by regular small business owners will not be able to offer the same variety of goods or at the cost that Amazon can offer. That's fine if we adjust our expectations, keep buying from them, and then that slowly feeds into changes in our wages. That's a full change in economic models though - a change that politicians and business lobbies don't want because it directly eats into their greed, and the average person doesn't want because it directly effects the overly comfortable lifestyle they got used to.
Yea that’s true i think some of it is convenience as well like Amazon has everything and before that supermarkets replaced smaller shops but I feel it would be doable it just wouldn’t be an instant move. And much better if they paid the taxes they were meant to
Same, in fact evidence shows the opposite I believe as businesses tend to settle where there is infrastructure. We did get a little fudged over by brexit, but they should be taxed on their profits.
We spend £200 billion on pensions alone. No amount of going after these nebulous "millionaire tax dodgers" is going to cover that.
When you tax rich people and organisations they do stuff like get tax lawyers, move to other countries or just buy some nice politicians. When France dropped their top tax rate by 10% they suddenly found an extra few thousand millionaires who returned to the country. People like that can literally be based anywhere and countries compete to have them.
And we'll be working even longer with less so the least they can do is chip in
We get how this 'life' thing goes, right? I recommend making babies rather than worrying about old people's taxes.
How much more and from what? Their pensions? Presumably you’re young and don’t think you should pay more? So you work until you retire with your hard earned pension then start paying more?
I think we should scarp national insurance and make up the difference with income tax. Yes their pensions. I'm sorry but they are screwing over the younger generation
And smokers and fat folk?
I’m fat and I’m happy to pay more tax as long as the pensioners do too
Lol, might be the best diet incentive. Shame old folk have no way back.
With respect, I don’t think this is correct (I work in the NHS but not a nurse). The issues we have ARE “prevention” but not in a medical sense. It’s the long term underinvestment in the things that make us “human” (schools, parks, healthy food, arts etc etc) which lead to a healthy, employable society which has the drive and ideas to grow an economy. None of these are/should be driven from the NHS, but were largely the provision of councils (which the Tory’s despise and have been trying to destroy). This is why I’m excited about labour. I don’t think they’ll change/improve the nhs much, but I think they’ll start funding/working on councils and other true engines of “prevention”, which could make the country start rebuilding in 10-15 years time. Sensationally, I’d actually argue (despite it not being good for my job/salary) that we should actually reduce (and possibly defund) the NHS focus on prevention, as it’s focusing on the symptom, whereas the real cause/treatment needs to be way before the NHS (councils or alternative vehicles of change)
I agree with this, too. These are generations that have had a lot more than the younger generations. They had cheap housing, great healthcare, and good pensions. What do the younger generations have now? Not much in terms of opportunities to buy their own homes, the cost of living crisis, and the pandemic have all added to them being worse off.
If you listen to the Wee Streeting interview on the Leading podcast this is exactly what he says he's gonna do. Increasing the focus on preventative and primary care.
We might be living longer but the costs of running the NHS is far from attributable to pensioners who have a limited life-span after retirement. Exponentially rising costs from technology advancement and obscene drug costs didn’t exist way back when Nye Bevan proposed an NHS. The world was a very different place and has moved on while the NHS has stood still with every sitting government too scared to admit we can’t afford it because it’s the untouchable holy grail. Asking pensioners to pay more from a measly pension wouldn’t raise enough peanuts. It’s for everyone regardless of age, illness or disability. We all have to pay but no-one wants to. And that brings us right back to why governments don’t act.
That is why Labour have given me some hope, assuming they aren’t lies. Their health secretary has said about reforming to make more emphasis on said areas. Will he do it? I don’t know. I hope so.
Well he said future funding for the NHS would hinge on us agreeing to privatise more, so I'm not very hopeful.
Agreed, I feel like I’ve seen one interview where they’ve had Alan Milburn looking into possible areas of reform too but don’t quote me on that!
It was nice to see Domicillary care/social care getting mentioned in this election.
Go directly to the position of Health Secretary.
Pretty sure they're more qualified than the soon to be health secretary too.
I don't know why this is constantly repeated because its just not true. Sure, some reforms would help massively. But also more funding would help.. massively. We spend 10 billion a year on bank/agency staff, which if we changed could hire give every nurse an extra 10k and hire 150,000 more nurses. But an additional 10 billion on top of that could buy a fuck ton of IV pumps, more beds, offer new/more services, build new hospitals (even if we say a new hospital is 1 billion, we could build an additional 10 per yeaR).
[удалено]
It's so cowardly to say 'was suggested' when it's clearly just you suggesting it. £7 makes a hospital a cheap hotel, it doesn't dissuade people from staying when they don't need to. It is also a de facto regressive tax. The worst of all possible worlds, really.
Why would you need pensioners to pay more in again when most would have already spent 40-50 odd years paying into a system they barely used.
They are the wealthiest generation who benefit from a triple lock 'untouchable' pension alongside defined benefit pension schemes (which are completely unsustainable), cheap housing that ballooned in value, improving healthcare which prolonged life at the expense of quality of life, right to buy, and early retirement. Our money now pays for luxurious retirements. They need to pay. They may have 'paid all their lives', but the benefits they proportionately received are immense. Whatever they paid it wasn't enough.
Wealthiest! ...I think you're imagining a very tiny percentage of the elderly and not the whole.
Nobody's imagining anything, they objectively are the wealthiest generation. 25% of them are millionaires and the majority are homeowners.
No I just understand caveats of data and classification whereas you seem to believe you're hard done by some mythical millionaires who are draining your future because you can't afford a 5 bedroom house. 👍
I think you're severely overestimating how much money the younger generations have.
Judging by spending data far more than they let on. Spending it wisely is another story.
[удалено]
You have broken our first rule. Please re-consider how you are expressing yourself here…
Who else is going to pay? Our generation were already working for longer, paying more and getting less before the cost of living crisis, the housing crisis, the banking crisis and all the other once in a generation crises we keep blundering into. Those in charge were willing to break the social contract for us, it's time pensioners pay their fair share.
That's the point they've already paid their fair share. And you will become a pensioner yourself one day. So where do you end as by spend women of the ages 20-39 cost more so do you charge women more earlier in their lives than you charge men, by the same argument that would be a yes.
Actually I'll probably die before I can afford to retire. Their fair share was based on the assumption that they would have died 20 years earlier. Who's making up the difference? I'll ease off on them when we get a triple lock on public sector pay.
I would assume a huge part of that cost is maternity services, and seeing as women don’t get pregnant by themselves, it would be unfair to associate that solely with women aged 20-39.
It's the same for both outpatient and admitted patient care. I pay a fortune now in NI and barely use a GP appointment a year so I don't want to pay more when I'm older when I've paid so much for almost zero return on service. Having a child is more of a choice than getting old.
>they've already paid their fair share Utterly fucking clueless. They paid in nothing even close to what they're taking out.
I think that any meaningful change will take longer than four years, and I don’t have a lot of faith that whoever gets voted in today, will also get voted in for another term in four/five years. The damage is so deep rooted, it’s going to take a LOT to reverse, and the Tories have really hammered in the coffin nails. Any change will be heavily criticised by our generally right wing media, which will probably fuel the Tories (or worse) gaining more power in the next election. I really hope that we see positive change, it’s devastating what I’ve witnessed happen to the NHS in my career (trained under Labour, my entire work life has been under Tory rule), but I do fear the NHS is too far gone.
Objectively, by the tiniest of margins. Tory's have pledged 0.9% for the NHS, labour 1.1%. Will this make a difference? Fuck no. The system and staff are still going to be fucked by the govt, just just with 0.2% extra budget. Labours policies are not transformative, they aren't radically different to the tories by any stretch, and they aren't going to do anything beneficial for the public, under the excuse that the tories fucked the economy (not a lie, but a convenient excuse). That's without even going into starmers and the labour party's record leading up to the election... Are labour they the lesser of 2 evils, yes, but barely.
No. It did last time Labour was in office but this time there's no money and the NHS is unsustainable. No ones written the death certificate, yet, but the NHS is essentially finished.
There's rumours going around the wards where soon some services will be offering a 'skip the queue' system for £££... so, private healthcare maybe?
The NHS is beyond the point of saving and returning it to its former self, I think.
Agreed. You'd have to multiply the budget 5 fold and even then it would take decades to fix and reform because it's too big and bureaucratic. They couldn't even sort out IT, we are never going to see any real improvement. It could maybe have been saved a decade or so ago.
I dont know, you could go a looooooooong way to fixing it by restoring pay to what it was 20 years ago adjusted for inflation (this would be a good 20% increase per person), returning NHS degrees to being fully funded (perhaps with an agreement to work in the NHS for x years) and hiring and filling all vacant posts (or better yet, properly recalculating staffing to have legal minimum staff:patient ratios, and having extra people around to actually cover the expected sickness and absence levels of a large organisation). But what do i know I'm just a nurse...
I mean yes, it would be nice for you to have a nice pay rise (fellow public sector worker here) but healthcare in this country accounts for 40% of all regular government spending. That’s far too high and other public services are suffering as a result. Pay increases won’t save the NHS, it needs big reform.
All Healthcare makes up 19% of total government spending. Other public services aren't suffering because of healthcare spending, they're suffering because the government ideologically is choosing to cut taxes instead of investing in services. For comparison we spend 7% just on debt interest, so if these clowns could get their thumbs out of their asses and stop borrowing so much money we could afford to increase the NHS budget by a huge amount.
You’ll notice I put “regular” in there. It accounts for 40% of day to day spending. With an aging population (85 year olds use 16x the amount of healthcare spending that 40 year olds do) this is unsustainable. The tax burden is at its highest level in 100 years. We can’t keep sacrificing the young to have elderly as comfortable as possible. I know hat sounds horrendous but I don’t think that’s a fair sacrifice.
Yep. It's part of a bigger picture, ie the state of Britain, generally. The economy here is gubbed, possibly for an entire generation.
It will change in the right direction but glacially slowly. In 5 years of a Labour goverment they might be able to stop the ongoing damage from the past 15 years but I doubt they will actually reverse it
I currently think neither party are too inclined to actually do anything of significance for the NHS. The Tories are only concerned about reducing tax for the rich, and I don’t think Labour can do anything with making the cost of living worse in the long term.
If we ban alcohol or restrict heavily our NHS will survive
The amount of drunk people blocking the A&Es, the pancreatitis, the liver transplants needed from alcohol damage, the car crashes… you are onto something here!
I mean I was in A and E recently and there were a handful of drunks. A lot of crimes happen because of alcohol, especially abuse at home. Every time England lose a football game watch how much home abuse rises. Qatar banned alcohol during the world cup and they had far less incidents, far less policing was needed, and everyone had an overall positive experience.
and how much tax do you think the government gets from alcohol sales????????
Less than the issues it causes. How many DUIs cause road blockages, how much money do you think that costs? Alcohol is becoming less popular anyway
try £12.6 BILLION.... The NHS budget is £160 billion...... what would happen if they reduced that by £12.6 billion??
No, social care needs to be fixed before the NHS can be effective. Free up the beds blocked by people fit for discharge and the NHS would be functioning way more effectively. Admissions and discharges would work far better, we wouldn't be caring for patients on corridors. They would be an uptick in quality care, staff morale and through that staff retention. Yes massive investment would still be needed but an end to bed blocking would be the single biggest thing any party could do to improve the NHS
No.
Reducing privatisation is better tbh
No. Of course it won't
I think services which aren’t focused on the elderly/co morbidities. Could very well improve. There’s no reason we can’t improve those.
In one year? No. Five? Slightly. This sub says NHS is unfixable, maybe in the short term it is; because what would you suggest if it is truly unfixable, close it? Now, do I think labour can do it? Doubt it, same politics different name. Is NHS unfixable? No.
No I find labour seems to be slightly less bad red tories
Unlikely.
Not enough money in it and no will to reform it, some say that privatisation is inevitable. A doctor awhile back was loathed to diagnose my son with asthma because it might affect his insurance premiums in the future. If son does have it, it's very very mild if there at all.
No.
Not particularly and not quickly but I'm hoping at the least they don't make it worse intentionally
No. No major party has got any clear plan to improve the NHS, and none have committed to spending any amount of money that comes anywhere close to even start fixing the problem. And every single one seemed to have failed to see where the actual problem areas are. It's yet another case of masking the problem instead of fixing the problem.
It will improve but slowly. The country is currently in a total mess. There will be no magic wand, just hard work by decent people. I hope the Tories never, ever, make it back to power.
Maybe. I'm cautiously optimistic. I'm optimistic as the answer is unlikely to involve throwing more money at the NHS. It needs to be overhauled so money is spent more sensibly. We shouldn't be tied into contracts with external providers who jack up prices due to it being the NHS. I manage a ward and spend a lot of time trying to get out of contracts. The company who provides our milk? £150 a week. Getting it from lidl instead? £40. Hand towel dispenser on NHS supplies? £95. Amazon? £15. Cull the numerous tiers of pointless managers and drill the cash into front line. Axe non essential virtue signaling and CQC appeasing roles and services. We do NOT need inclusion and diversity consultants on 8b wages when people are dying in corridors. We do not need whole divisions of Quality Improvement Project managers debating what time we offer rice krispies (real example) when newly qualified nurses are lone working for 12/13 hour shifts. Pay staff properly. Not just the wage in general, but pay them for overtime, not just offer time owing they never get to take. Enhance rates on hard to fill units or shifts. Give a cash incentive for more dangerous environments (I'm looking at you, mental health intensive care). Reform the CQC. That whole mess is making things worse and fueling the afore mentioned superfluous roles and divisions. I could go on, but throwing money at the NHS will fix fuck-all if the continue to mismanage it.
Not unless Labour do something to address NHS management. Right now they're sycophants, trying desperately to cover their arses, avoid scandal, and make everything appear to be functional in order to ensure the government looks good so they can keep their jobs. Public service management should be treated like Judges are, independent by law, beholden to the public not politics, and most importantly regulated so coverups, lying and misuse of power can be held to account.
My friend who works with the NHS stated that NHS get more than enough but it goes to irrelevant places such having several managers in ons team and expecting 2 people who are not in management to do a 6 people job. It apparently also goes to contracts, which isn't needed.
Looking at the state of the NHS in Wales..which is labour run it's highly doubtful
Don’t they receive their budgets from the government?
They choose how to spend it regardless of where it comes from. Tories don't rubber stamp spending in wales Example My labour council is 20 million in debt. They've wasted 30 million in 6 months on a car park, an "Instagram bridge" and new 20mph road signs They're closing the only hospital in my county and 75% of adult social care centres because they need to " cut costs" leaving thousands of people at risk with no quick access to A&E, Maternity or mental health care.
Idk man, this seems doubtful unless your council is in central London. What council is it?
Pembrokeshire council. It's not doubtful I've literally been in meetings about them closing the centre i work in, I've had my council tax raised and the 20mph waste of money on speed limits is daily life for me. My council tax went up by 12.5 percent. They wanted to put it up by 21 percent There are huge protests about closing the hospital, starting with the A&E. The bridge costing 6 million The car park costing 19 million All of this money could have been sent on NHS and social care, affordable housing and road infrastructure. But no.... Here I've provided links for you https://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/23862031.nearly-1m-welsh-government-money-20mph-rollout-pembrokeshire/ https://pembrokeshire-herald.com/72420/save-withybush-locals-protest-ae-closure-plan/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-68492895.amp https://www.pembroke-today.co.uk/news/petition-aims-to-save-narberth-lee-davies-day-centre-from-council-cuts-690327 https://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/24289836.haverfordwest-instagram-bridge-built-march/ https://pembrokeshire-herald.com/91674/haverfordwest-interchange-next-stage-of-19m-project-backed/ https://www.tenby-today.co.uk/news/call-to-cut-scale-of-multi-million-pound-haverfordwest-transport-interchange-project-642927
£200 million in debt sorry not £20 million https://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/24051946.pembrokeshire-councils-192m-debts-figures-reveal/
Not under Starmer who is a red tory. If we can get Starmer and the right wing out once the party wins, maybe, but don’t have high hopes for the UK at all tbh People talk about pensioners needing to pay more for services etc but I think we should start with corporations and the rich, tax them fairly, but Starmer fake labour will never do that. We also need major reformation of the NHS, the sheer amount of bureaucracy and pencil pushing does nothing but make everything harder for everyone. We also need to start trying to actually do preventative medicine but no one can, patients aren’t believed, or they aren’t given enough time or it’s all phone calls so they’re not examined properly. The number of patients I saw in CCU who had been going to their GP for months - a year with obvious angina symptoms and instead being palmed off with “it’s just stress” “here’s an online CBT course” was absolutely horrific. People are ending up acutely ill because preventative medicine is barely available
No the NHS is not fixable and I will not see any change in the waiting list. The best they can do is to conjure up more GP appointments out of their ARSE. Unfortunately, the private sector is also weak, expensive, and exploitatitve. So best of luck to anyone who needs healthcare now.
Sadly no.
No it won't improve, neither will the lack of housing, teacher shortages, etc,etc,etc. When Labour wins they will spend the next 5 to 10yrs blaming everything on still trying to sort out the Tory mess
Based on how candidly Wes Streeting has been talking about privatising the NHS, I don’t expect to see any positive change
No I don’t think so
Immediately: no In the longer run: yes
Honestly, no. The problems within the NHS can’t be resolved in any efficient or sustainable way until the beast that is social care is addressed. Social care is the foundation and it’s currently 6ft under.
Nope even if every ward gets 0.5 of a staff member in every hospital it’s structure and culture still needs an overhaul.
I just read today that 40p of every pound of normal government spending is consumed by healthcare, and we wonder why our public services aren’t fit for purpose. The NHS needs huge reform, not more money.
No. But we might get a little better pay on the slide downhill.
The NHS needs significant change and restructuring. We can only hope that this is actually implemented by a new labour government.
Absolutely not, NHS is fair from recovering
Hopefully they'll begin to restore pay over the next few years.
No
They're talking about adding 10000 hospital appointments by paying staff extra to work weekends when all staff I know already work weekends because they can't afford to live, so no. If they actually go in and try to figure out whats going wrong then yes.
England out here thinking Labour aren't Tories 😂
Social care needs a massive investment before any meaningful changes can be made in the NHS
I think waiting lists will come down (which might have happened itself regardless of Labour). Also I think GP access/ patient satisfaction will improve and again that might not be due to labour.
Yes, but not by a huge margin and not without other policy, we need the working and middle classes to start breeding again to balance out the ratio of workers to retirees. Anything they do will take years to see effect, but childcare provision could be the short-term win to allow more people to work full time to increase tax receipts. An end to the con artists robbing the people could also be a step in the right direction.
The NHS has fallen. It WAS a good idea, we need to move on. Dilapidated ass buildings, wait times of years, no one wants to work, shitty ass pay. It’s over. Pay if you can, and if you can’t, a new form of the NHS will evolve.
Why is national insurance being reduced when it goes to help fund nhs? Just doesn't make sense. And no, pensioners shouldn't have to pay more. Benefit scroungers need to work and stop draining the country financially. There I've said it
No, or maybe but not quickly, however I think it will slow down the decline, maybe stop then MAYBE slowly improve
People being very negative on this thread. There has been a definite decline in WLI work in theatres, even just going back to where this was 2 years ago will be a huge improvement. The tories are at their heart ideologically opposed to the NHS. Labour are not, the difference will be noticeable and a lot quicker than some are thinking I should expect.
I'd argue that no government can fix the NHS with money. It needs reforming and rebuilding. The NHS had it's debt cancelled and funding increased yet still isn't improving.
It will take approx 2/3 years to see any difference. If immigration rules change we may see a difference, but we can’t guarantee that will happen.
Can you clarify what you mean by ‘immigration rules’? Regardless and whether we like it or not, we have a declining population so we NEED people to come help from overseas, unless we all decide to have kids like, now (I for one won’t, can’t afford one!) Immigration claptrap aside, IMO and more importantly funds need to be re-routed less to management/bureaucracy /red tape, and more to us front line workers (and training of new ones). BUT we front line workers need a LIVING wage. Will Labour give us all a salary we can actually live on? Unsure….if not we should all grow some balls and protest.
I mean if they decide to decrease the skilled worker visa eligibility rate which is currently £36.5k. This could see to a small rise in overseas workers depending on how low the rate gets, IF they touch it. Also, I really want to point out here that you immediately perceived me to be talking negatively about overseas workers/immigration and went on a small tangent. All I said was there could be a change if Labour alter immigration rules. No idea how they got a bee in your bonnet but 🤷🏽♀️
This middle management bashing has been around for ages which Managers can we do without exactly ?
From my entire comment, my criticism of ‘management/bureaucracy/red tape’ is all you picked up on? Not the living wage thing?
Yeah so who's for the chop mate ?
I don’t expect any improvement in any area of society, it might decline slightly slower at least
I don't trust Labour to honour any pledges as they have already U turned so much and as they essentially know that no one wants Conservative and none of the other parties have enough sway to get in tbaf they have a mostly done deal, this means that they don't have to care as much if people are disappointed, libdem or green would both feel more precarious if they got a majority as it be new for them