The banning EU mineral water story is surely a spoof – politicalbetting.com

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BBC reporting £192 billion was spent on the NHS in England alone in 2020/21

This is 44% of all public spending up from 27% in 2020

This is not sustainable and we need a serious discussion on the future role and funding for the NHS

I would add I have no idea how this is addressed when even a 1.25% increase in NI next Spring is so angrily dismisses by many

True, though that's more because public spending that isn't health, pensions (and to an extent) schools have been ruthlessly squeezed for a decade or so.

In the medium term, things cost what they cost and politicians who try to buck the market get found out. In the UK, we've had a fairly long run of politicians (certainly back to Thatcher, maybe even earlier) who have been able to promise something for nothing by offering the public services which aren't properly paid for by taxes. And a lot of that excess cash has gone on pumping up house prices.

Unfortunately for Johnson and Sunak, they've ended up in Downing Street when the music is stopping. The stable solution is, bluntly, to pay more for the quality of health, social care and public realm (libraries, parks and whatnot) that we want. The nature of those functions means that there's a fairly low limit on how much efficiency you can squeeze out of the processes.But that isn't going to be popular.

In Johnson's case, at least, it couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

Who pays for it though? We've already got a huge tax burden on working people and businesses. Even if we taxed old people properly and wealth in a way that wouldn't impact investment and saving there would be a huge gap.

The answer isn't more tax it's less spending. It's time to take an axe to what the NHS is responsible and start clawing back the state pension from higher rate taxpayers in retirement. Once again, no one wants to admit it, even on here where there's no such thing as an unapproachable subject, the NHS can't keep chasing life expectancy gains. If people die at 86 instead of 88 then that's got to be accepted as the cost of having universal healthcare safety net. Investing money into hugely expensive life extending treatment and drugs needs to be discussed properly and we as a society should be a bit more comfortable with the idea that we all die.

Then bang goes the Redwall if NHS spoending is slashed and the state pension is axed. Bang goes the Tory majority too.

The Tories can afford to lose a few socially liberal libertarians like you to the LDs or Reform UK in the wealthiest parts of London and the Home Counties and still win a narrow majority.

They cannot afford to lose working class Leave voters in the Redwall to Labour and higher earning pensioners in the Home Counties to the LDs as if they do then the Tory majority goes with them and the Tories likely lose power

So what’s the plan?

Inciting or suppressing rebellion usually.

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BBC reporting £192 billion was spent on the NHS in England alone in 2020/21

This is 44% of all public spending up from 27% in 2020

This is not sustainable and we need a serious discussion on the future role and funding for the NHS

I would add I have no idea how this is addressed when even a 1.25% increase in NI next Spring is so angrily dismisses by many

True, though that's more because public spending that isn't health, pensions (and to an extent) schools have been ruthlessly squeezed for a decade or so.

In the medium term, things cost what they cost and politicians who try to buck the market get found out. In the UK, we've had a fairly long run of politicians (certainly back to Thatcher, maybe even earlier) who have been able to promise something for nothing by offering the public services which aren't properly paid for by taxes. And a lot of that excess cash has gone on pumping up house prices.

Unfortunately for Johnson and Sunak, they've ended up in Downing Street when the music is stopping. The stable solution is, bluntly, to pay more for the quality of health, social care and public realm (libraries, parks and whatnot) that we want. The nature of those functions means that there's a fairly low limit on how much efficiency you can squeeze out of the processes.But that isn't going to be popular.

In Johnson's case, at least, it couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

Who pays for it though? We've already got a huge tax burden on working people and businesses. Even if we taxed old people properly and wealth in a way that wouldn't impact investment and saving there would be a huge gap.

The answer isn't more tax it's less spending. It's time to take an axe to what the NHS is responsible and start clawing back the state pension from higher rate taxpayers in retirement. Once again, no one wants to admit it, even on here where there's no such thing as an unapproachable subject, the NHS can't keep chasing life expectancy gains. If people die at 86 instead of 88 then that's got to be accepted as the cost of having universal healthcare safety net. Investing money into hugely expensive life extending treatment and drugs needs to be discussed properly and we as a society should be a bit more comfortable with the idea that we all die.

That's one way to go, though bear in mind that the NHS isn't bad at cost control- even after the Blair splurge.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20200331-1#:~:text=On average in the EU, it is estimated,expenditure amounted to 9.9% of GDP in 2017.

So, if you want to bear down on NHS spending, you are going to have to be very clear what the NHS is going to stop doing. Which people we are not going to treat any more. Good luck getting that past the public.

We've (sort of) done that with most other aspects of pubic spending, which is why a lot of things that used to happen and make life better don't happen any more. This is particularly true of local councils, which are pretty much limited to basic interpretations of statutory duties and nowt else.

That may all be a valid thing to do. But is it The Will Of The People? Especially, the Will Of The Proportion Of The People Who Vote Conservative (who, let's remember, are very skewed to older)? And is it going to happen with a craven jellyfish like BoJo in charge? Of course it isn't.

But it's not entirely Bozza's fault. The dependency ratio has been going south for most of my lifetime, because Baby Boomers couldn't be bothered to have enough babies themselves. Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron... none of them really put enough aside for the wave of retirements now breaking. Mostly because the voters from the eighties to the noughties didn't let them. And now BoJo is in the big chair he has craved forever, and the bills are beginning to land on his desk.

In this case, it isn't really his fault. But boy, is it Karmic.

MaxPB said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BBC reporting £192 billion was spent on the NHS in England alone in 2020/21

This is 44% of all public spending up from 27% in 2020

This is not sustainable and we need a serious discussion on the future role and funding for the NHS

I would add I have no idea how this is addressed when even a 1.25% increase in NI next Spring is so angrily dismisses by many

True, though that's more because public spending that isn't health, pensions (and to an extent) schools have been ruthlessly squeezed for a decade or so.

In the medium term, things cost what they cost and politicians who try to buck the market get found out. In the UK, we've had a fairly long run of politicians (certainly back to Thatcher, maybe even earlier) who have been able to promise something for nothing by offering the public services which aren't properly paid for by taxes. And a lot of that excess cash has gone on pumping up house prices.

Unfortunately for Johnson and Sunak, they've ended up in Downing Street when the music is stopping. The stable solution is, bluntly, to pay more for the quality of health, social care and public realm (libraries, parks and whatnot) that we want. The nature of those functions means that there's a fairly low limit on how much efficiency you can squeeze out of the processes.But that isn't going to be popular.

In Johnson's case, at least, it couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

Who pays for it though? We've already got a huge tax burden on working people and businesses. Even if we taxed old people properly and wealth in a way that wouldn't impact investment and saving there would be a huge gap.

The answer isn't more tax it's less spending. It's time to take an axe to what the NHS is responsible and start clawing back the state pension from higher rate taxpayers in retirement. Once again, no one wants to admit it, even on here where there's no such thing as an unapproachable subject, the NHS can't keep chasing life expectancy gains. If people die at 86 instead of 88 then that's got to be accepted as the cost of having universal healthcare safety net. Investing money into hugely expensive life extending treatment and drugs needs to be discussed properly and we as a society should be a bit more comfortable with the idea that we all die.

In many areas and classes folk aren't dying at 86, though. They are dying much, much earlier. And usually at greater cost, both financially and socially.
This country has been historically abysmal at prevention.

But a lot of that stems from the taxpayer carrying unlimited liability for the nation's healthcare. It creates an entitlement culture where people stop caring for their own health when they know someone else will fix them up and other people will suffer the cost of doing so.

My health insurance in Switzerland gave me an annual refund based on my actual usage, and because I'm a generally pretty healthy person I got a refund. In the UK people like me, regardless of income, are punished for being healthy because not only do we pay over the odds for our own healthcare needs, we subsidise the obese, the smokers, the anti-vaxxers and all the other people who are a huge burden on the NHS.

So once again, we as a nation need to have a big and wide ranging discussion about what the NHS should do and whether universal healthcare is a net positive for the nation. Is it right that the healthy poor subsidise a smokers to get lung cancer treatment, I mean they have enough money to waste on cigarettes so they can bloody pay for private insurance to cover all smoking related treatment requirements.

Once again, this is the result of our creation of a society without consequences for poor decision making and now we can't afford it.

Smokers pay many times over.
And I used to remember council pools and leisure centres in poorer areas. They always seemed to be busy. And they were cheap too. Now it's private gyms in wealthy areas.
Go to any European village, there'll be tennis courts and football pitches beautifully maintained. There's much more to it than how the treatment is paid for at the end of it.

Stocky said:

rcs1000 said:

Aslan said:

rcs1000 said:

Has anyone else got one of these combined toaster over / airfryer things? They're like magic. Stuff that says it'll take 15 minutes to cook only takes 5 minutes. The only issue is that you have to watch stuff like a hawk to stop it turning all black and charred.

Yes, we have one and it also automatically turns off after you set the cooking time so don't have your problem. They are also fantastic for reheating fried things without them going soggy.

My biggest problem with it is we got rid of our toaster and it takes too long to make toast.

Yeah. But what do you set the cooking time to be?

Take this morning. I was heating up some frittatas. The instructions send 15 minutes at 425 Fahrenheit.

So I did five minutes at 375. And it was still too long. I think maybe four minutes tat 350 would have been perfect.

Never heard of them. Just looked it up - Sage do a nice looking one. Can they be a direct replacement for a microwave oven? Can they defrost like a microwave?

If it don't work iSage have an alternative system.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BBC reporting £192 billion was spent on the NHS in England alone in 2020/21

This is 44% of all public spending up from 27% in 2020

This is not sustainable and we need a serious discussion on the future role and funding for the NHS

I would add I have no idea how this is addressed when even a 1.25% increase in NI next Spring is so angrily dismisses by many

True, though that's more because public spending that isn't health, pensions (and to an extent) schools have been ruthlessly squeezed for a decade or so.

In the medium term, things cost what they cost and politicians who try to buck the market get found out. In the UK, we've had a fairly long run of politicians (certainly back to Thatcher, maybe even earlier) who have been able to promise something for nothing by offering the public services which aren't properly paid for by taxes. And a lot of that excess cash has gone on pumping up house prices.

Unfortunately for Johnson and Sunak, they've ended up in Downing Street when the music is stopping. The stable solution is, bluntly, to pay more for the quality of health, social care and public realm (libraries, parks and whatnot) that we want. The nature of those functions means that there's a fairly low limit on how much efficiency you can squeeze out of the processes.But that isn't going to be popular.

In Johnson's case, at least, it couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

Who pays for it though? We've already got a huge tax burden on working people and businesses. Even if we taxed old people properly and wealth in a way that wouldn't impact investment and saving there would be a huge gap.

The answer isn't more tax it's less spending. It's time to take an axe to what the NHS is responsible and start clawing back the state pension from higher rate taxpayers in retirement. Once again, no one wants to admit it, even on here where there's no such thing as an unapproachable subject, the NHS can't keep chasing life expectancy gains. If people die at 86 instead of 88 then that's got to be accepted as the cost of having universal healthcare safety net. Investing money into hugely expensive life extending treatment and drugs needs to be discussed properly and we as a society should be a bit more comfortable with the idea that we all die.

Then bang goes the Redwall if NHS spoending is slashed and the state pension is axed. Bang goes the Tory majority too.

The Tories can afford to lose a few socially liberal libertarians like you to the LDs or Reform UK in the wealthiest parts of London and the Home Counties and still win a narrow majority.

They cannot afford to lose working class Leave voters in the Redwall to Labour and higher earning pensioners in the Home Counties to the LDs as if they do then the Tory majority goes with them and the Tories likely lose power

Do you ever think these problems are so huge that the conservative party do not have a divine right to be in power and either these issues need addressing fairly otherwise someone else will

Boris cares about being re elected not about solving big problems if they lose him votes, he is a populist after all

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BBC reporting £192 billion was spent on the NHS in England alone in 2020/21

This is 44% of all public spending up from 27% in 2020

This is not sustainable and we need a serious discussion on the future role and funding for the NHS

I would add I have no idea how this is addressed when even a 1.25% increase in NI next Spring is so angrily dismisses by many

True, though that's more because public spending that isn't health, pensions (and to an extent) schools have been ruthlessly squeezed for a decade or so.

In the medium term, things cost what they cost and politicians who try to buck the market get found out. In the UK, we've had a fairly long run of politicians (certainly back to Thatcher, maybe even earlier) who have been able to promise something for nothing by offering the public services which aren't properly paid for by taxes. And a lot of that excess cash has gone on pumping up house prices.

Unfortunately for Johnson and Sunak, they've ended up in Downing Street when the music is stopping. The stable solution is, bluntly, to pay more for the quality of health, social care and public realm (libraries, parks and whatnot) that we want. The nature of those functions means that there's a fairly low limit on how much efficiency you can squeeze out of the processes.But that isn't going to be popular.

In Johnson's case, at least, it couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

Who pays for it though? We've already got a huge tax burden on working people and businesses. Even if we taxed old people properly and wealth in a way that wouldn't impact investment and saving there would be a huge gap.

The answer isn't more tax it's less spending. It's time to take an axe to what the NHS is responsible and start clawing back the state pension from higher rate taxpayers in retirement. Once again, no one wants to admit it, even on here where there's no such thing as an unapproachable subject, the NHS can't keep chasing life expectancy gains. If people die at 86 instead of 88 then that's got to be accepted as the cost of having universal healthcare safety net. Investing money into hugely expensive life extending treatment and drugs needs to be discussed properly and we as a society should be a bit more comfortable with the idea that we all die.

In many areas and classes folk aren't dying at 86, though. They are dying much, much earlier. And usually at greater cost, both financially and socially.
This country has been historically abysmal at prevention.

But a lot of that stems from the taxpayer carrying unlimited liability for the nation's healthcare. It creates an entitlement culture where people stop caring for their own health when they know someone else will fix them up and other people will suffer the cost of doing so.

My health insurance in Switzerland gave me an annual refund based on my actual usage, and because I'm a generally pretty healthy person I got a refund. In the UK people like me, regardless of income, are punished for being healthy because not only do we pay over the odds for our own healthcare needs, we subsidise the obese, the smokers, the anti-vaxxers and all the other people who are a huge burden on the NHS.

So once again, we as a nation need to have a big and wide ranging discussion about what the NHS should do and whether universal healthcare is a net positive for the nation. Is it right that the healthy poor subsidise a smokers to get lung cancer treatment, I mean they have enough money to waste on cigarettes so they can bloody pay for private insurance to cover all smoking related treatment requirements.

Once again, this is the result of our creation of a society without consequences for poor decision making and now we can't afford it.

Smokers pay many times over.
And I used to remember council pools and leisure centres in poorer areas. They always seemed to be busy. And they were cheap too. Now it's private gyms in wealthy areas.
Go to any European village, there'll be tennis courts and football pitches beautifully maintained. There's much more to it than how the treatment is paid for at the end of it.

Again, it's a vicious circle. If the NHS wasn't so resource hungry to keep everyone alive at basically any cost maybe we wouldn't have had to shut those facilities down to save money.

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BBC reporting £192 billion was spent on the NHS in England alone in 2020/21

This is 44% of all public spending up from 27% in 2020

This is not sustainable and we need a serious discussion on the future role and funding for the NHS

I would add I have no idea how this is addressed when even a 1.25% increase in NI next Spring is so angrily dismisses by many

True, though that's more because public spending that isn't health, pensions (and to an extent) schools have been ruthlessly squeezed for a decade or so.

In the medium term, things cost what they cost and politicians who try to buck the market get found out. In the UK, we've had a fairly long run of politicians (certainly back to Thatcher, maybe even earlier) who have been able to promise something for nothing by offering the public services which aren't properly paid for by taxes. And a lot of that excess cash has gone on pumping up house prices.

Unfortunately for Johnson and Sunak, they've ended up in Downing Street when the music is stopping. The stable solution is, bluntly, to pay more for the quality of health, social care and public realm (libraries, parks and whatnot) that we want. The nature of those functions means that there's a fairly low limit on how much efficiency you can squeeze out of the processes.But that isn't going to be popular.

In Johnson's case, at least, it couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

Who pays for it though? We've already got a huge tax burden on working people and businesses. Even if we taxed old people properly and wealth in a way that wouldn't impact investment and saving there would be a huge gap.

The answer isn't more tax it's less spending. It's time to take an axe to what the NHS is responsible and start clawing back the state pension from higher rate taxpayers in retirement. Once again, no one wants to admit it, even on here where there's no such thing as an unapproachable subject, the NHS can't keep chasing life expectancy gains. If people die at 86 instead of 88 then that's got to be accepted as the cost of having universal healthcare safety net. Investing money into hugely expensive life extending treatment and drugs needs to be discussed properly and we as a society should be a bit more comfortable with the idea that we all die.

Then bang goes the Redwall if NHS spoending is slashed and the state pension is axed. Bang goes the Tory majority too.

The Tories can afford to lose a few socially liberal libertarians like you to the LDs or Reform UK in the wealthiest parts of London and the Home Counties and still win a narrow majority.

They cannot afford to lose working class Leave voters in the Redwall to Labour and higher earning pensioners in the Home Counties to the LDs as if they do then the Tory majority goes with them and the Tories likely lose power

Do you ever think these problems are so huge that the conservative party do not have a divine right to be in power and either these issues need addressing fairly otherwise someone else will

Boris cares about being re elected not about solving big problems if they lose him votes, he is a populist after all

Boris is a left wing socialist miles away from your views

Until you change them to suit the current narrative

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BBC reporting £192 billion was spent on the NHS in England alone in 2020/21

This is 44% of all public spending up from 27% in 2020

This is not sustainable and we need a serious discussion on the future role and funding for the NHS

I would add I have no idea how this is addressed when even a 1.25% increase in NI next Spring is so angrily dismisses by many

True, though that's more because public spending that isn't health, pensions (and to an extent) schools have been ruthlessly squeezed for a decade or so.

In the medium term, things cost what they cost and politicians who try to buck the market get found out. In the UK, we've had a fairly long run of politicians (certainly back to Thatcher, maybe even earlier) who have been able to promise something for nothing by offering the public services which aren't properly paid for by taxes. And a lot of that excess cash has gone on pumping up house prices.

Unfortunately for Johnson and Sunak, they've ended up in Downing Street when the music is stopping. The stable solution is, bluntly, to pay more for the quality of health, social care and public realm (libraries, parks and whatnot) that we want. The nature of those functions means that there's a fairly low limit on how much efficiency you can squeeze out of the processes.But that isn't going to be popular.

In Johnson's case, at least, it couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

Who pays for it though? We've already got a huge tax burden on working people and businesses. Even if we taxed old people properly and wealth in a way that wouldn't impact investment and saving there would be a huge gap.

The answer isn't more tax it's less spending. It's time to take an axe to what the NHS is responsible and start clawing back the state pension from higher rate taxpayers in retirement. Once again, no one wants to admit it, even on here where there's no such thing as an unapproachable subject, the NHS can't keep chasing life expectancy gains. If people die at 86 instead of 88 then that's got to be accepted as the cost of having universal healthcare safety net. Investing money into hugely expensive life extending treatment and drugs needs to be discussed properly and we as a society should be a bit more comfortable with the idea that we all die.

Then bang goes the Redwall if NHS spoending is slashed and the state pension is axed. Bang goes the Tory majority too.

The Tories can afford to lose a few socially liberal libertarians like you to the LDs or Reform UK in the wealthiest parts of London and the Home Counties and still win a narrow majority.

They cannot afford to lose working class Leave voters in the Redwall to Labour and higher earning pensioners in the Home Counties to the LDs as if they do then the Tory majority goes with them and the Tories likely lose power

Do you ever think these problems are so huge that the conservative party do not have a divine right to be in power and either these issues need addressing fairly otherwise someone else will

Boris cares about being re elected not about solving big problems if they lose him votes, he is a populist after all

Boris is a left wing socialist miles away from your views

He is not a left wing socialist, he has not raised income tax, he has not raised inheritance tax, he has not introduced a wealth tax and he has not nationalised any industries.

He is however certainly a populist Keynesian not a Thatcherite as far as economic policy goes

Apparently the National Minimum Wage is going up from £8.91 to £9.50 per hour. That's an increase of 59p per hour.

A Full Time worker on NMW getting Universal Credit is on a Real Marginal Tax Rate of 75%.

So take home pay goes up 14.75 pence per hour.

For someone working 37.5 hours per week full time, that's £5.53 extra in take home pay.

In order to get £20 extra per week from a 59p pay rise at 75% tax rates, an employee would need to be working 135.59 hours per week. Which is 19 hours and 22 minutes, seven days a week.

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BBC reporting £192 billion was spent on the NHS in England alone in 2020/21

This is 44% of all public spending up from 27% in 2020

This is not sustainable and we need a serious discussion on the future role and funding for the NHS

I would add I have no idea how this is addressed when even a 1.25% increase in NI next Spring is so angrily dismisses by many

True, though that's more because public spending that isn't health, pensions (and to an extent) schools have been ruthlessly squeezed for a decade or so.

In the medium term, things cost what they cost and politicians who try to buck the market get found out. In the UK, we've had a fairly long run of politicians (certainly back to Thatcher, maybe even earlier) who have been able to promise something for nothing by offering the public services which aren't properly paid for by taxes. And a lot of that excess cash has gone on pumping up house prices.

Unfortunately for Johnson and Sunak, they've ended up in Downing Street when the music is stopping. The stable solution is, bluntly, to pay more for the quality of health, social care and public realm (libraries, parks and whatnot) that we want. The nature of those functions means that there's a fairly low limit on how much efficiency you can squeeze out of the processes.But that isn't going to be popular.

In Johnson's case, at least, it couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

Who pays for it though? We've already got a huge tax burden on working people and businesses. Even if we taxed old people properly and wealth in a way that wouldn't impact investment and saving there would be a huge gap.

The answer isn't more tax it's less spending. It's time to take an axe to what the NHS is responsible and start clawing back the state pension from higher rate taxpayers in retirement. Once again, no one wants to admit it, even on here where there's no such thing as an unapproachable subject, the NHS can't keep chasing life expectancy gains. If people die at 86 instead of 88 then that's got to be accepted as the cost of having universal healthcare safety net. Investing money into hugely expensive life extending treatment and drugs needs to be discussed properly and we as a society should be a bit more comfortable with the idea that we all die.

That's one way to go, though bear in mind that the NHS isn't bad at cost control- even after the Blair splurge.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20200331-1#:~:text=On average in the EU, it is estimated,expenditure amounted to 9.9% of GDP in 2017.

So, if you want to bear down on NHS spending, you are going to have to be very clear what the NHS is going to stop doing. Which people we are not going to treat any more. Good luck getting that past the public.

We've (sort of) done that with most other aspects of pubic spending, which is why a lot of things that used to happen and make life better don't happen any more. This is particularly true of local councils, which are pretty much limited to basic interpretations of statutory duties and nowt else.

That may all be a valid thing to do. But is it The Will Of The People? Especially, the Will Of The Proportion Of The People Who Vote Conservative (who, let's remember, are very skewed to older)? And is it going to happen with a craven jellyfish like BoJo in charge? Of course it isn't.

But it's not entirely Bozza's fault. The dependency ratio has been going south for most of my lifetime, because Baby Boomers couldn't be bothered to have enough babies themselves. Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron... none of them really put enough aside for the wave of retirements now breaking. Mostly because the voters from the eighties to the noughties didn't let them. And now BoJo is in the big chair he has craved forever, and the bills are beginning to land on his desk.

In this case, it isn't really his fault. But boy, is it Karmic.

You're also skirting around the issue. Ultimately what I'm saying is that the NHS needs to let people die if they get terminal illnesses or make type 2 diabetics pay for their own bloody drugs because they're all overweight and have damaged their pancreases from having shit diets and doing a sum total of zero exercise.

Creating a society where there are no negative consequences from having an unhealthy lifestyle and the negative externalities are foisted onto the taxpayer has resulted in 44% of our current budget being spent on healthcare.

Maybe my answers aren't going to win any votes, in fact I'm certain they wouldn't. Doesn't mean we don't at least need to have the discussion.

Trouble is that the diseases of the old and virtuous are ruinously expensive to manage as well. It's all very well pointing at diabetics, but take something like dementia, which is the sort of thing that happens if you do look after your body and then get old.

Maybe we should just let the old and confused wander off to die. Especially if they haven't saved enough over their working life.

The bottom line is that we wouldn't have started from here, in oh so many ways. But if you think we can solve the problem by saying that some people shouldn't get treatment, that's also skirting round the issue.

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BBC reporting £192 billion was spent on the NHS in England alone in 2020/21

This is 44% of all public spending up from 27% in 2020

This is not sustainable and we need a serious discussion on the future role and funding for the NHS

I would add I have no idea how this is addressed when even a 1.25% increase in NI next Spring is so angrily dismisses by many

True, though that's more because public spending that isn't health, pensions (and to an extent) schools have been ruthlessly squeezed for a decade or so.

In the medium term, things cost what they cost and politicians who try to buck the market get found out. In the UK, we've had a fairly long run of politicians (certainly back to Thatcher, maybe even earlier) who have been able to promise something for nothing by offering the public services which aren't properly paid for by taxes. And a lot of that excess cash has gone on pumping up house prices.

Unfortunately for Johnson and Sunak, they've ended up in Downing Street when the music is stopping. The stable solution is, bluntly, to pay more for the quality of health, social care and public realm (libraries, parks and whatnot) that we want. The nature of those functions means that there's a fairly low limit on how much efficiency you can squeeze out of the processes.But that isn't going to be popular.

In Johnson's case, at least, it couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

Who pays for it though? We've already got a huge tax burden on working people and businesses. Even if we taxed old people properly and wealth in a way that wouldn't impact investment and saving there would be a huge gap.

The answer isn't more tax it's less spending. It's time to take an axe to what the NHS is responsible and start clawing back the state pension from higher rate taxpayers in retirement. Once again, no one wants to admit it, even on here where there's no such thing as an unapproachable subject, the NHS can't keep chasing life expectancy gains. If people die at 86 instead of 88 then that's got to be accepted as the cost of having universal healthcare safety net. Investing money into hugely expensive life extending treatment and drugs needs to be discussed properly and we as a society should be a bit more comfortable with the idea that we all die.

That's one way to go, though bear in mind that the NHS isn't bad at cost control- even after the Blair splurge.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20200331-1#:~:text=On average in the EU, it is estimated,expenditure amounted to 9.9% of GDP in 2017.

So, if you want to bear down on NHS spending, you are going to have to be very clear what the NHS is going to stop doing. Which people we are not going to treat any more. Good luck getting that past the public.

We've (sort of) done that with most other aspects of pubic spending, which is why a lot of things that used to happen and make life better don't happen any more. This is particularly true of local councils, which are pretty much limited to basic interpretations of statutory duties and nowt else.

That may all be a valid thing to do. But is it The Will Of The People? Especially, the Will Of The Proportion Of The People Who Vote Conservative (who, let's remember, are very skewed to older)? And is it going to happen with a craven jellyfish like BoJo in charge? Of course it isn't.

But it's not entirely Bozza's fault. The dependency ratio has been going south for most of my lifetime, because Baby Boomers couldn't be bothered to have enough babies themselves. Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron... none of them really put enough aside for the wave of retirements now breaking. Mostly because the voters from the eighties to the noughties didn't let them. And now BoJo is in the big chair he has craved forever, and the bills are beginning to land on his desk.

In this case, it isn't really his fault. But boy, is it Karmic.

You're also skirting around the issue. Ultimately what I'm saying is that the NHS needs to let people die if they get terminal illnesses or make type 2 diabetics pay for their own bloody drugs because they're all overweight and have damaged their pancreases from having shit diets and doing a sum total of zero exercise.

Creating a society where there are no negative consequences from having an unhealthy lifestyle and the negative externalities are foisted onto the taxpayer has resulted in 44% of our current budget being spent on healthcare.

Maybe my answers aren't going to win any votes, in fact I'm certain they wouldn't. Doesn't mean we don't at least need to have the discussion.

Trouble is that the diseases of the old and virtuous are ruinously expensive to manage as well. It's all very well pointing at diabetics, but take something like dementia, which is the sort of thing that happens if you do look after your body and then get old.

Maybe we should just let the old and confused wander off to die. Especially if they haven't saved enough over their working life.

The bottom line is that we wouldn't have started from here, in oh so many ways. But if you think we can solve the problem by saying that some people shouldn't get treatment, that's also skirting round the issue.

I feel old and confused quite often these days but a couple of years to 80 will be good!!!!

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BBC reporting £192 billion was spent on the NHS in England alone in 2020/21

This is 44% of all public spending up from 27% in 2020

This is not sustainable and we need a serious discussion on the future role and funding for the NHS

I would add I have no idea how this is addressed when even a 1.25% increase in NI next Spring is so angrily dismisses by many

True, though that's more because public spending that isn't health, pensions (and to an extent) schools have been ruthlessly squeezed for a decade or so.

In the medium term, things cost what they cost and politicians who try to buck the market get found out. In the UK, we've had a fairly long run of politicians (certainly back to Thatcher, maybe even earlier) who have been able to promise something for nothing by offering the public services which aren't properly paid for by taxes. And a lot of that excess cash has gone on pumping up house prices.

Unfortunately for Johnson and Sunak, they've ended up in Downing Street when the music is stopping. The stable solution is, bluntly, to pay more for the quality of health, social care and public realm (libraries, parks and whatnot) that we want. The nature of those functions means that there's a fairly low limit on how much efficiency you can squeeze out of the processes.But that isn't going to be popular.

In Johnson's case, at least, it couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

Who pays for it though? We've already got a huge tax burden on working people and businesses. Even if we taxed old people properly and wealth in a way that wouldn't impact investment and saving there would be a huge gap.

The answer isn't more tax it's less spending. It's time to take an axe to what the NHS is responsible and start clawing back the state pension from higher rate taxpayers in retirement. Once again, no one wants to admit it, even on here where there's no such thing as an unapproachable subject, the NHS can't keep chasing life expectancy gains. If people die at 86 instead of 88 then that's got to be accepted as the cost of having universal healthcare safety net. Investing money into hugely expensive life extending treatment and drugs needs to be discussed properly and we as a society should be a bit more comfortable with the idea that we all die.

That's one way to go, though bear in mind that the NHS isn't bad at cost control- even after the Blair splurge.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20200331-1#:~:text=On average in the EU, it is estimated,expenditure amounted to 9.9% of GDP in 2017.

So, if you want to bear down on NHS spending, you are going to have to be very clear what the NHS is going to stop doing. Which people we are not going to treat any more. Good luck getting that past the public.

We've (sort of) done that with most other aspects of pubic spending, which is why a lot of things that used to happen and make life better don't happen any more. This is particularly true of local councils, which are pretty much limited to basic interpretations of statutory duties and nowt else.

That may all be a valid thing to do. But is it The Will Of The People? Especially, the Will Of The Proportion Of The People Who Vote Conservative (who, let's remember, are very skewed to older)? And is it going to happen with a craven jellyfish like BoJo in charge? Of course it isn't.

But it's not entirely Bozza's fault. The dependency ratio has been going south for most of my lifetime, because Baby Boomers couldn't be bothered to have enough babies themselves. Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron... none of them really put enough aside for the wave of retirements now breaking. Mostly because the voters from the eighties to the noughties didn't let them. And now BoJo is in the big chair he has craved forever, and the bills are beginning to land on his desk.

In this case, it isn't really his fault. But boy, is it Karmic.

You're also skirting around the issue. Ultimately what I'm saying is that the NHS needs to let people die if they get terminal illnesses or make type 2 diabetics pay for their own bloody drugs because they're all overweight and have damaged their pancreases from having shit diets and doing a sum total of zero exercise.

Creating a society where there are no negative consequences from having an unhealthy lifestyle and the negative externalities are foisted onto the taxpayer has resulted in 44% of our current budget being spent on healthcare.

Maybe my answers aren't going to win any votes, in fact I'm certain they wouldn't. Doesn't mean we don't at least need to have the discussion.

Trouble is that the diseases of the old and virtuous are ruinously expensive to manage as well. It's all very well pointing at diabetics, but take something like dementia, which is the sort of thing that happens if you do look after your body and then get old.

Maybe we should just let the old and confused wander off to die. Especially if they haven't saved enough over their working life.

The bottom line is that we wouldn't have started from here, in oh so many ways. But if you think we can solve the problem by saying that some people shouldn't get treatment, that's also skirting round the issue.

I feel old and confused quite often these days but a couple of years to 80 will be good!!!!

And the best of luck to you for that. Having a relative somewhat older than you, who gets increasingly exhausted talking to grandchildren on the phone or in person, makes this set of questions difficult to think about.

But a simple "stop treating them", even if the cost is painful for my generation to bear, just isn't civilised.

rottenborough said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Apparently the National Minimum Wage is going up from £8.91 to £9.50 per hour. That's an increase of 59p per hour.

A Full Time worker on NMW getting Universal Credit is on a Real Marginal Tax Rate of 75%.

So take home pay goes up 14.75 pence per hour.

For someone working 37.5 hours per week full time, that's £5.53 extra in take home pay.

In order to get £20 extra per week from a 59p pay rise at 75% tax rates, an employee would need to be working 135.59 hours per week. Which is 19 hours and 22 minutes, seven days a week.

Please can you check this but I understand if you work over 16 hours a week you do not get UC

Don't think that is correct @Big_G_NorthWales

That is why I queried it as it came up on a search

It does not look right

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BBC reporting £192 billion was spent on the NHS in England alone in 2020/21

This is 44% of all public spending up from 27% in 2020

This is not sustainable and we need a serious discussion on the future role and funding for the NHS

I would add I have no idea how this is addressed when even a 1.25% increase in NI next Spring is so angrily dismisses by many

True, though that's more because public spending that isn't health, pensions (and to an extent) schools have been ruthlessly squeezed for a decade or so.

In the medium term, things cost what they cost and politicians who try to buck the market get found out. In the UK, we've had a fairly long run of politicians (certainly back to Thatcher, maybe even earlier) who have been able to promise something for nothing by offering the public services which aren't properly paid for by taxes. And a lot of that excess cash has gone on pumping up house prices.

Unfortunately for Johnson and Sunak, they've ended up in Downing Street when the music is stopping. The stable solution is, bluntly, to pay more for the quality of health, social care and public realm (libraries, parks and whatnot) that we want. The nature of those functions means that there's a fairly low limit on how much efficiency you can squeeze out of the processes.But that isn't going to be popular.

In Johnson's case, at least, it couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

Who pays for it though? We've already got a huge tax burden on working people and businesses. Even if we taxed old people properly and wealth in a way that wouldn't impact investment and saving there would be a huge gap.

The answer isn't more tax it's less spending. It's time to take an axe to what the NHS is responsible and start clawing back the state pension from higher rate taxpayers in retirement. Once again, no one wants to admit it, even on here where there's no such thing as an unapproachable subject, the NHS can't keep chasing life expectancy gains. If people die at 86 instead of 88 then that's got to be accepted as the cost of having universal healthcare safety net. Investing money into hugely expensive life extending treatment and drugs needs to be discussed properly and we as a society should be a bit more comfortable with the idea that we all die.

That's one way to go, though bear in mind that the NHS isn't bad at cost control- even after the Blair splurge.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20200331-1#:~:text=On average in the EU, it is estimated,expenditure amounted to 9.9% of GDP in 2017.

So, if you want to bear down on NHS spending, you are going to have to be very clear what the NHS is going to stop doing. Which people we are not going to treat any more. Good luck getting that past the public.

We've (sort of) done that with most other aspects of pubic spending, which is why a lot of things that used to happen and make life better don't happen any more. This is particularly true of local councils, which are pretty much limited to basic interpretations of statutory duties and nowt else.

That may all be a valid thing to do. But is it The Will Of The People? Especially, the Will Of The Proportion Of The People Who Vote Conservative (who, let's remember, are very skewed to older)? And is it going to happen with a craven jellyfish like BoJo in charge? Of course it isn't.

But it's not entirely Bozza's fault. The dependency ratio has been going south for most of my lifetime, because Baby Boomers couldn't be bothered to have enough babies themselves. Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron... none of them really put enough aside for the wave of retirements now breaking. Mostly because the voters from the eighties to the noughties didn't let them. And now BoJo is in the big chair he has craved forever, and the bills are beginning to land on his desk.

In this case, it isn't really his fault. But boy, is it Karmic.

You're also skirting around the issue. Ultimately what I'm saying is that the NHS needs to let people die if they get terminal illnesses or make type 2 diabetics pay for their own bloody drugs because they're all overweight and have damaged their pancreases from having shit diets and doing a sum total of zero exercise.

Creating a society where there are no negative consequences from having an unhealthy lifestyle and the negative externalities are foisted onto the taxpayer has resulted in 44% of our current budget being spent on healthcare.

Maybe my answers aren't going to win any votes, in fact I'm certain they wouldn't. Doesn't mean we don't at least need to have the discussion.

Trouble is that the diseases of the old and virtuous are ruinously expensive to manage as well. It's all very well pointing at diabetics, but take something like dementia, which is the sort of thing that happens if you do look after your body and then get old.

Maybe we should just let the old and confused wander off to die. Especially if they haven't saved enough over their working life.

The bottom line is that we wouldn't have started from here, in oh so many ways. But if you think we can solve the problem by saying that some people shouldn't get treatment, that's also skirting round the issue.

I feel old and confused quite often these days but a couple of years to 80 will be good!!!!

And the best of luck to you for that. Having a relative somewhat older than you, who gets increasingly exhausted talking to grandchildren on the phone or in person, makes this set of questions difficult to think about.

But a simple "stop treating them", even if the cost is painful for my generation to bear, just isn't civilised.

I have a relative near 4 years older and she is my very special lady wife

We do talk of possible problems as we continue to age and are lucky to have a grown up family who we take into our confidence and we are aware of DNR orders, indeed my late sister had one

However, we are very fortunate and very blessed

MaxPB said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BBC reporting £192 billion was spent on the NHS in England alone in 2020/21

This is 44% of all public spending up from 27% in 2020

This is not sustainable and we need a serious discussion on the future role and funding for the NHS

I would add I have no idea how this is addressed when even a 1.25% increase in NI next Spring is so angrily dismisses by many

True, though that's more because public spending that isn't health, pensions (and to an extent) schools have been ruthlessly squeezed for a decade or so.

In the medium term, things cost what they cost and politicians who try to buck the market get found out. In the UK, we've had a fairly long run of politicians (certainly back to Thatcher, maybe even earlier) who have been able to promise something for nothing by offering the public services which aren't properly paid for by taxes. And a lot of that excess cash has gone on pumping up house prices.

Unfortunately for Johnson and Sunak, they've ended up in Downing Street when the music is stopping. The stable solution is, bluntly, to pay more for the quality of health, social care and public realm (libraries, parks and whatnot) that we want. The nature of those functions means that there's a fairly low limit on how much efficiency you can squeeze out of the processes.But that isn't going to be popular.

In Johnson's case, at least, it couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

Who pays for it though? We've already got a huge tax burden on working people and businesses. Even if we taxed old people properly and wealth in a way that wouldn't impact investment and saving there would be a huge gap.

The answer isn't more tax it's less spending. It's time to take an axe to what the NHS is responsible and start clawing back the state pension from higher rate taxpayers in retirement. Once again, no one wants to admit it, even on here where there's no such thing as an unapproachable subject, the NHS can't keep chasing life expectancy gains. If people die at 86 instead of 88 then that's got to be accepted as the cost of having universal healthcare safety net. Investing money into hugely expensive life extending treatment and drugs needs to be discussed properly and we as a society should be a bit more comfortable with the idea that we all die.

In many areas and classes folk aren't dying at 86, though. They are dying much, much earlier. And usually at greater cost, both financially and socially.
This country has been historically abysmal at prevention.

But a lot of that stems from the taxpayer carrying unlimited liability for the nation's healthcare. It creates an entitlement culture where people stop caring for their own health when they know someone else will fix them up and other people will suffer the cost of doing so.

My health insurance in Switzerland gave me an annual refund based on my actual usage, and because I'm a generally pretty healthy person I got a refund. In the UK people like me, regardless of income, are punished for being healthy because not only do we pay over the odds for our own healthcare needs, we subsidise the obese, the smokers, the anti-vaxxers and all the other people who are a huge burden on the NHS.

So once again, we as a nation need to have a big and wide ranging discussion about what the NHS should do and whether universal healthcare is a net positive for the nation. Is it right that the healthy poor subsidise a smokers to get lung cancer treatment, I mean they have enough money to waste on cigarettes so they can bloody pay for private insurance to cover all smoking related treatment requirements.

Once again, this is the result of our creation of a society without consequences for poor decision making and now we can't afford it.

Those with poor health decision making tend to die early and in reasonably unpleasant ways (apart from the quick, fatal heart attack, but even those seem to have gone out of fashion among the young. Not consequence-free and if dying an early horrible death isn't incentive enough to be healthy then I'm not sure that the threat of having to pay for care would be.

It would be interesting to see studies, but it may well be that those with the poorest health choices are relatively cheap. Even your smoker - a few rounds of treatment might be cheaper than long term dementia care. Joint operations are expensive and sometimes stem from old sports injuries etc.

There's also the point that NICE is fairly hot on cost-effectiveness, except when over ruled by political masters, so there is no bottomless treatment pit - things have to extend quality and quantity of life. It does mean that long term conditions that are not massively expensive on the individual level get funded and they mount up over time (even statins for example - so ubiquitous, they're surely value for money, but they probably cost a lot by preventing quick, catastrophic failures that lead to death - value for money, but still an overall cost, most likely).

What's the solution? Well, as we live longer in reasonable health we'll have to work longer. Our grandparents were in no fit state to work when they got to retirement age. Our parents are off skiing (literally and metaphorically). Pension ages are finally going up and they'll have to keep going up, but it has come too late to head off big problems. We can probably afford (say?) ten years of post working life per person, including healthcare. The problem (if seen as a problem) is that this will mean many of those with poor health/poor choices/poor backgrounds may never see retirement, as indeed used to be the case and the rich will still be able to squirrel enough money away or gain from housing windfalls to retire earlier. The golden age in which retirement stayed static and everyone started living longer, getting 15-20 good life quality retired years may, I fear, be behind us.

Farooq said:

turbotubbs said:

Farooq said:

Raising National insurance does not a socialist make

So the big question is this - are enough people in the U.K. prepared to pay Scandinavian levels of tax, to get Scandinavian levels of state spending?

It depends on what the newspapers tell them to think, doesn't it?

That’s a bit cynical. I think lots of people say things to polling companies that they don’t follow through on in the polling booth.

Selebian said:

MaxPB said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BBC reporting £192 billion was spent on the NHS in England alone in 2020/21

This is 44% of all public spending up from 27% in 2020

This is not sustainable and we need a serious discussion on the future role and funding for the NHS

I would add I have no idea how this is addressed when even a 1.25% increase in NI next Spring is so angrily dismisses by many

True, though that's more because public spending that isn't health, pensions (and to an extent) schools have been ruthlessly squeezed for a decade or so.

In the medium term, things cost what they cost and politicians who try to buck the market get found out. In the UK, we've had a fairly long run of politicians (certainly back to Thatcher, maybe even earlier) who have been able to promise something for nothing by offering the public services which aren't properly paid for by taxes. And a lot of that excess cash has gone on pumping up house prices.

Unfortunately for Johnson and Sunak, they've ended up in Downing Street when the music is stopping. The stable solution is, bluntly, to pay more for the quality of health, social care and public realm (libraries, parks and whatnot) that we want. The nature of those functions means that there's a fairly low limit on how much efficiency you can squeeze out of the processes.But that isn't going to be popular.

In Johnson's case, at least, it couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

Who pays for it though? We've already got a huge tax burden on working people and businesses. Even if we taxed old people properly and wealth in a way that wouldn't impact investment and saving there would be a huge gap.

The answer isn't more tax it's less spending. It's time to take an axe to what the NHS is responsible and start clawing back the state pension from higher rate taxpayers in retirement. Once again, no one wants to admit it, even on here where there's no such thing as an unapproachable subject, the NHS can't keep chasing life expectancy gains. If people die at 86 instead of 88 then that's got to be accepted as the cost of having universal healthcare safety net. Investing money into hugely expensive life extending treatment and drugs needs to be discussed properly and we as a society should be a bit more comfortable with the idea that we all die.

In many areas and classes folk aren't dying at 86, though. They are dying much, much earlier. And usually at greater cost, both financially and socially.
This country has been historically abysmal at prevention.

But a lot of that stems from the taxpayer carrying unlimited liability for the nation's healthcare. It creates an entitlement culture where people stop caring for their own health when they know someone else will fix them up and other people will suffer the cost of doing so.

My health insurance in Switzerland gave me an annual refund based on my actual usage, and because I'm a generally pretty healthy person I got a refund. In the UK people like me, regardless of income, are punished for being healthy because not only do we pay over the odds for our own healthcare needs, we subsidise the obese, the smokers, the anti-vaxxers and all the other people who are a huge burden on the NHS.

So once again, we as a nation need to have a big and wide ranging discussion about what the NHS should do and whether universal healthcare is a net positive for the nation. Is it right that the healthy poor subsidise a smokers to get lung cancer treatment, I mean they have enough money to waste on cigarettes so they can bloody pay for private insurance to cover all smoking related treatment requirements.

Once again, this is the result of our creation of a society without consequences for poor decision making and now we can't afford it.

Those with poor health decision making tend to die early and in reasonably unpleasant ways (apart from the quick, fatal heart attack, but even those seem to have gone out of fashion among the young. Not consequence-free and if dying an early horrible death isn't incentive enough to be healthy then I'm not sure that the threat of having to pay for care would be.

It would be interesting to see studies, but it may well be that those with the poorest health choices are relatively cheap. Even your smoker - a few rounds of treatment might be cheaper than long term dementia care. Joint operations are expensive and sometimes stem from old sports injuries etc.

There's also the point that NICE is fairly hot on cost-effectiveness, except when over ruled by political masters, so there is no bottomless treatment pit - things have to extend quality and quantity of life. It does mean that long term conditions that are not massively expensive on the individual level get funded and they mount up over time (even statins for example - so ubiquitous, they're surely value for money, but they probably cost a lot by preventing quick, catastrophic failures that lead to death - value for money, but still an overall cost, most likely).

What's the solution? Well, as we live longer in reasonable health we'll have to work longer. Our grandparents were in no fit state to work when they got to retirement age. Our parents are off skiing (literally and metaphorically). Pension ages are finally going up and they'll have to keep going up, but it has come too late to head off big problems. We can probably afford (say?) ten years of post working life per person, including healthcare. The problem (if seen as a problem) is that this will mean many of those with poor health/poor choices/poor backgrounds may never see retirement, as indeed used to be the case and the rich will still be able to squirrel enough money away or gain from housing windfalls to retire earlier. The golden age in which retirement stayed static and everyone started living longer, getting 15-20 good life quality retired years may, I fear, be behind us.

I think you may just have hit the nail on the head

turbotubbs said:

Farooq said:

Raising National insurance does not a socialist make

So the big question is this - are enough people in the U.K. prepared to pay Scandinavian levels of tax, to get Scandinavian levels of state spending?

That's not the only way of going- the other relevant question is whether enough people in the UK are prepared to accept USA levels of public services, to get USA levels of tax?

The key, painful thing is that we've collectively persuaded ourselves that the UK is entitled to the best of both worlds. And that option, which was never really an option anyway, is increasingly for the birds.

NEW: @Telegraph has seen a copy of the Government’s private impact assessment for vaccine passports.

The £££ hit on turnover… the problems outside stadiums… the fears it will drive people to Covid-risky pubs… the ??? over delivery…Quick thread👇

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/25/vaccine-passports-could-fuel-covid-cost-venues-millions-says/

Scott_xP said:

NEW: @Telegraph has seen a copy of the Government’s private impact assessment for vaccine passports.

The £££ hit on turnover… the problems outside stadiums… the fears it will drive people to Covid-risky pubs… the ??? over delivery…Quick thread👇

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/25/vaccine-passports-could-fuel-covid-cost-venues-millions-says/

There is no need for them

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BBC reporting £192 billion was spent on the NHS in England alone in 2020/21

This is 44% of all public spending up from 27% in 2020

This is not sustainable and we need a serious discussion on the future role and funding for the NHS

I would add I have no idea how this is addressed when even a 1.25% increase in NI next Spring is so angrily dismisses by many

True, though that's more because public spending that isn't health, pensions (and to an extent) schools have been ruthlessly squeezed for a decade or so.

In the medium term, things cost what they cost and politicians who try to buck the market get found out. In the UK, we've had a fairly long run of politicians (certainly back to Thatcher, maybe even earlier) who have been able to promise something for nothing by offering the public services which aren't properly paid for by taxes. And a lot of that excess cash has gone on pumping up house prices.

Unfortunately for Johnson and Sunak, they've ended up in Downing Street when the music is stopping. The stable solution is, bluntly, to pay more for the quality of health, social care and public realm (libraries, parks and whatnot) that we want. The nature of those functions means that there's a fairly low limit on how much efficiency you can squeeze out of the processes.But that isn't going to be popular.

In Johnson's case, at least, it couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

Who pays for it though? We've already got a huge tax burden on working people and businesses. Even if we taxed old people properly and wealth in a way that wouldn't impact investment and saving there would be a huge gap.

The answer isn't more tax it's less spending. It's time to take an axe to what the NHS is responsible and start clawing back the state pension from higher rate taxpayers in retirement. Once again, no one wants to admit it, even on here where there's no such thing as an unapproachable subject, the NHS can't keep chasing life expectancy gains. If people die at 86 instead of 88 then that's got to be accepted as the cost of having universal healthcare safety net. Investing money into hugely expensive life extending treatment and drugs needs to be discussed properly and we as a society should be a bit more comfortable with the idea that we all die.

Then bang goes the Redwall if NHS spoending is slashed and the state pension is axed. Bang goes the Tory majority too.

The Tories can afford to lose a few socially liberal libertarians like you to the LDs or Reform UK in the wealthiest parts of London and the Home Counties and still win a narrow majority.

They cannot afford to lose working class Leave voters in the Redwall to Labour and higher earning pensioners in the Home Counties to the LDs as if they do then the Tory majority goes with them and the Tories likely lose power

Do you ever think these problems are so huge that the conservative party do not have a divine right to be in power and either these issues need addressing fairly otherwise someone else will

Boris cares about being re elected not about solving big problems if they lose him votes, he is a populist after all

What's the point of being elected then?

He was elected to deliver Brexit and beat Corbyn, both of which he has achieved

Farooq said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Farooq said:

Raising National insurance does not a socialist make

Does raising taxes by 2.5% make you a socialist?

Because piling on a 1.25% tax on employers and a 1.25% tax on employees, is a combined 2.5% income tax.

No, it doesn't. Because socialism is not about tinkering with tax rates.
We need to drop this "Boris is a socialist" canard, because it doesn't really help us understand policy choices in any meaningful way. Boris is a capitalist. As are most politicians.

A socialist would have a top rate of income tax of at least 50%, would have raised inheritance tax and imposed a wealth tax, would have renationalised the railways and utility companies at least and maybe more companies and would have increased the power of trade unions and be spending even more than Boris. So yes Boris is not a socialist

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BBC reporting £192 billion was spent on the NHS in England alone in 2020/21

This is 44% of all public spending up from 27% in 2020

This is not sustainable and we need a serious discussion on the future role and funding for the NHS

I would add I have no idea how this is addressed when even a 1.25% increase in NI next Spring is so angrily dismisses by many

True, though that's more because public spending that isn't health, pensions (and to an extent) schools have been ruthlessly squeezed for a decade or so.

In the medium term, things cost what they cost and politicians who try to buck the market get found out. In the UK, we've had a fairly long run of politicians (certainly back to Thatcher, maybe even earlier) who have been able to promise something for nothing by offering the public services which aren't properly paid for by taxes. And a lot of that excess cash has gone on pumping up house prices.

Unfortunately for Johnson and Sunak, they've ended up in Downing Street when the music is stopping. The stable solution is, bluntly, to pay more for the quality of health, social care and public realm (libraries, parks and whatnot) that we want. The nature of those functions means that there's a fairly low limit on how much efficiency you can squeeze out of the processes.But that isn't going to be popular.

In Johnson's case, at least, it couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

Who pays for it though? We've already got a huge tax burden on working people and businesses. Even if we taxed old people properly and wealth in a way that wouldn't impact investment and saving there would be a huge gap.

The answer isn't more tax it's less spending. It's time to take an axe to what the NHS is responsible and start clawing back the state pension from higher rate taxpayers in retirement. Once again, no one wants to admit it, even on here where there's no such thing as an unapproachable subject, the NHS can't keep chasing life expectancy gains. If people die at 86 instead of 88 then that's got to be accepted as the cost of having universal healthcare safety net. Investing money into hugely expensive life extending treatment and drugs needs to be discussed properly and we as a society should be a bit more comfortable with the idea that we all die.

The state does already claw back the state pension from higher rate tax payers, since it's a taxable benefit. That NI isn't paid by those over state retirement age is a mistake that's been perpetuated by multiple governments and should be changed.

We need to switch away from taxes on income and spending (VAT) and introduce a wealth tax focused on the top 10% who own 45% of the nation's wealth.

MaxPB said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BBC reporting £192 billion was spent on the NHS in England alone in 2020/21

This is 44% of all public spending up from 27% in 2020

This is not sustainable and we need a serious discussion on the future role and funding for the NHS

I would add I have no idea how this is addressed when even a 1.25% increase in NI next Spring is so angrily dismisses by many

True, though that's more because public spending that isn't health, pensions (and to an extent) schools have been ruthlessly squeezed for a decade or so.

In the medium term, things cost what they cost and politicians who try to buck the market get found out. In the UK, we've had a fairly long run of politicians (certainly back to Thatcher, maybe even earlier) who have been able to promise something for nothing by offering the public services which aren't properly paid for by taxes. And a lot of that excess cash has gone on pumping up house prices.

Unfortunately for Johnson and Sunak, they've ended up in Downing Street when the music is stopping. The stable solution is, bluntly, to pay more for the quality of health, social care and public realm (libraries, parks and whatnot) that we want. The nature of those functions means that there's a fairly low limit on how much efficiency you can squeeze out of the processes.But that isn't going to be popular.

In Johnson's case, at least, it couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

Who pays for it though? We've already got a huge tax burden on working people and businesses. Even if we taxed old people properly and wealth in a way that wouldn't impact investment and saving there would be a huge gap.

The answer isn't more tax it's less spending. It's time to take an axe to what the NHS is responsible and start clawing back the state pension from higher rate taxpayers in retirement. Once again, no one wants to admit it, even on here where there's no such thing as an unapproachable subject, the NHS can't keep chasing life expectancy gains. If people die at 86 instead of 88 then that's got to be accepted as the cost of having universal healthcare safety net. Investing money into hugely expensive life extending treatment and drugs needs to be discussed properly and we as a society should be a bit more comfortable with the idea that we all die.

In many areas and classes folk aren't dying at 86, though. They are dying much, much earlier. And usually at greater cost, both financially and socially.
This country has been historically abysmal at prevention.

But a lot of that stems from the taxpayer carrying unlimited liability for the nation's healthcare. It creates an entitlement culture where people stop caring for their own health when they know someone else will fix them up and other people will suffer the cost of doing so.

My health insurance in Switzerland gave me an annual refund based on my actual usage, and because I'm a generally pretty healthy person I got a refund. In the UK people like me, regardless of income, are punished for being healthy because not only do we pay over the odds for our own healthcare needs, we subsidise the obese, the smokers, the anti-vaxxers and all the other people who are a huge burden on the NHS.

So once again, we as a nation need to have a big and wide ranging discussion about what the NHS should do and whether universal healthcare is a net positive for the nation. Is it right that the healthy poor subsidise a smokers to get lung cancer treatment, I mean they have enough money to waste on cigarettes so they can bloody pay for private insurance to cover all smoking related treatment requirements.

Once again, this is the result of our creation of a society without consequences for poor decision making and now we can't afford it.

Smokers pay many times over.
And I used to remember council pools and leisure centres in poorer areas. They always seemed to be busy. And they were cheap too. Now it's private gyms in wealthy areas.
Go to any European village, there'll be tennis courts and football pitches beautifully maintained. There's much more to it than how the treatment is paid for at the end of it.

Again, it's a vicious circle. If the NHS wasn't so resource hungry to keep everyone alive at basically any cost maybe we wouldn't have had to shut those facilities down to save money.

That is a travesty of NHS policy. One of the conversations most days is to discuss the limitations of care and when to stop. Anyone who has been involved with a sick elderly relative will have had that conversation. It is why a Respect form is done on admission, and why we have end of life pathways of care. The best medicine is often not life prolonging.

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BBC reporting £192 billion was spent on the NHS in England alone in 2020/21

This is 44% of all public spending up from 27% in 2020

This is not sustainable and we need a serious discussion on the future role and funding for the NHS

I would add I have no idea how this is addressed when even a 1.25% increase in NI next Spring is so angrily dismisses by many

True, though that's more because public spending that isn't health, pensions (and to an extent) schools have been ruthlessly squeezed for a decade or so.

In the medium term, things cost what they cost and politicians who try to buck the market get found out. In the UK, we've had a fairly long run of politicians (certainly back to Thatcher, maybe even earlier) who have been able to promise something for nothing by offering the public services which aren't properly paid for by taxes. And a lot of that excess cash has gone on pumping up house prices.

Unfortunately for Johnson and Sunak, they've ended up in Downing Street when the music is stopping. The stable solution is, bluntly, to pay more for the quality of health, social care and public realm (libraries, parks and whatnot) that we want. The nature of those functions means that there's a fairly low limit on how much efficiency you can squeeze out of the processes.But that isn't going to be popular.

In Johnson's case, at least, it couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

Who pays for it though? We've already got a huge tax burden on working people and businesses. Even if we taxed old people properly and wealth in a way that wouldn't impact investment and saving there would be a huge gap.

The answer isn't more tax it's less spending. It's time to take an axe to what the NHS is responsible and start clawing back the state pension from higher rate taxpayers in retirement. Once again, no one wants to admit it, even on here where there's no such thing as an unapproachable subject, the NHS can't keep chasing life expectancy gains. If people die at 86 instead of 88 then that's got to be accepted as the cost of having universal healthcare safety net. Investing money into hugely expensive life extending treatment and drugs needs to be discussed properly and we as a society should be a bit more comfortable with the idea that we all die.

In many areas and classes folk aren't dying at 86, though. They are dying much, much earlier. And usually at greater cost, both financially and socially.
This country has been historically abysmal at prevention.

But a lot of that stems from the taxpayer carrying unlimited liability for the nation's healthcare. It creates an entitlement culture where people stop caring for their own health when they know someone else will fix them up and other people will suffer the cost of doing so.

My health insurance in Switzerland gave me an annual refund based on my actual usage, and because I'm a generally pretty healthy person I got a refund. In the UK people like me, regardless of income, are punished for being healthy because not only do we pay over the odds for our own healthcare needs, we subsidise the obese, the smokers, the anti-vaxxers and all the other people who are a huge burden on the NHS.

So once again, we as a nation need to have a big and wide ranging discussion about what the NHS should do and whether universal healthcare is a net positive for the nation. Is it right that the healthy poor subsidise a smokers to get lung cancer treatment, I mean they have enough money to waste on cigarettes so they can bloody pay for private insurance to cover all smoking related treatment requirements.

Once again, this is the result of our creation of a society without consequences for poor decision making and now we can't afford it.

Smokers pay many times over.
And I used to remember council pools and leisure centres in poorer areas. They always seemed to be busy. And they were cheap too. Now it's private gyms in wealthy areas.
Go to any European village, there'll be tennis courts and football pitches beautifully maintained. There's much more to it than how the treatment is paid for at the end of it.

Again, it's a vicious circle. If the NHS wasn't so resource hungry to keep everyone alive at basically any cost maybe we wouldn't have had to shut those facilities down to save money.

Maybe it was a tragic false economy? One of the worst ever.
I give you school sports too.
Nonetheless, we pay relatively little for our healthcare. If it is publicly funded, then that necessitates a higher tax burden than places which don't. Not shutting everything which enables poorer folk to stay in decent shape.

Indeed in the final months of the Brown administration came the Marmot Report, which took this approach to preventative medicine in order to address inequalities of health, a sort of Levelling Up, if you like:

https://www.local.gov.uk/marmot-review-report-fair-society-healthy-lives

It was junked by the Tories as part of Osbornes austerity, but could and should be revived as a core part of any Labour led government.

Selebian said:

MaxPB said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BBC reporting £192 billion was spent on the NHS in England alone in 2020/21

This is 44% of all public spending up from 27% in 2020

This is not sustainable and we need a serious discussion on the future role and funding for the NHS

I would add I have no idea how this is addressed when even a 1.25% increase in NI next Spring is so angrily dismisses by many

True, though that's more because public spending that isn't health, pensions (and to an extent) schools have been ruthlessly squeezed for a decade or so.

In the medium term, things cost what they cost and politicians who try to buck the market get found out. In the UK, we've had a fairly long run of politicians (certainly back to Thatcher, maybe even earlier) who have been able to promise something for nothing by offering the public services which aren't properly paid for by taxes. And a lot of that excess cash has gone on pumping up house prices.

Unfortunately for Johnson and Sunak, they've ended up in Downing Street when the music is stopping. The stable solution is, bluntly, to pay more for the quality of health, social care and public realm (libraries, parks and whatnot) that we want. The nature of those functions means that there's a fairly low limit on how much efficiency you can squeeze out of the processes.But that isn't going to be popular.

In Johnson's case, at least, it couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

Who pays for it though? We've already got a huge tax burden on working people and businesses. Even if we taxed old people properly and wealth in a way that wouldn't impact investment and saving there would be a huge gap.

The answer isn't more tax it's less spending. It's time to take an axe to what the NHS is responsible and start clawing back the state pension from higher rate taxpayers in retirement. Once again, no one wants to admit it, even on here where there's no such thing as an unapproachable subject, the NHS can't keep chasing life expectancy gains. If people die at 86 instead of 88 then that's got to be accepted as the cost of having universal healthcare safety net. Investing money into hugely expensive life extending treatment and drugs needs to be discussed properly and we as a society should be a bit more comfortable with the idea that we all die.

In many areas and classes folk aren't dying at 86, though. They are dying much, much earlier. And usually at greater cost, both financially and socially.
This country has been historically abysmal at prevention.

But a lot of that stems from the taxpayer carrying unlimited liability for the nation's healthcare. It creates an entitlement culture where people stop caring for their own health when they know someone else will fix them up and other people will suffer the cost of doing so.

My health insurance in Switzerland gave me an annual refund based on my actual usage, and because I'm a generally pretty healthy person I got a refund. In the UK people like me, regardless of income, are punished for being healthy because not only do we pay over the odds for our own healthcare needs, we subsidise the obese, the smokers, the anti-vaxxers and all the other people who are a huge burden on the NHS.

So once again, we as a nation need to have a big and wide ranging discussion about what the NHS should do and whether universal healthcare is a net positive for the nation. Is it right that the healthy poor subsidise a smokers to get lung cancer treatment, I mean they have enough money to waste on cigarettes so they can bloody pay for private insurance to cover all smoking related treatment requirements.

Once again, this is the result of our creation of a society without consequences for poor decision making and now we can't afford it.

Those with poor health decision making tend to die early and in reasonably unpleasant ways (apart from the quick, fatal heart attack, but even those seem to have gone out of fashion among the young. Not consequence-free and if dying an early horrible death isn't incentive enough to be healthy then I'm not sure that the threat of having to pay for care would be.

It would be interesting to see studies, but it may well be that those with the poorest health choices are relatively cheap. Even your smoker - a few rounds of treatment might be cheaper than long term dementia care. Joint operations are expensive and sometimes stem from old sports injuries etc.

There's also the point that NICE is fairly hot on cost-effectiveness, except when over ruled by political masters, so there is no bottomless treatment pit - things have to extend quality and quantity of life. It does mean that long term conditions that are not massively expensive on the individual level get funded and they mount up over time (even statins for example - so ubiquitous, they're surely value for money, but they probably cost a lot by preventing quick, catastrophic failures that lead to death - value for money, but still an overall cost, most likely).

What's the solution? Well, as we live longer in reasonable health we'll have to work longer. Our grandparents were in no fit state to work when they got to retirement age. Our parents are off skiing (literally and metaphorically). Pension ages are finally going up and they'll have to keep going up, but it has come too late to head off big problems. We can probably afford (say?) ten years of post working life per person, including healthcare. The problem (if seen as a problem) is that this will mean many of those with poor health/poor choices/poor backgrounds may never see retirement, as indeed used to be the case and the rich will still be able to squirrel enough money away or gain from housing windfalls to retire earlier. The golden age in which retirement stayed static and everyone started living longer, getting 15-20 good life quality retired years may, I fear, be behind us.

Exactly. The core problem is the political power of the retired in our system to vote to distribute the tax receipts of people of working age to fund public spending, so that they don't have to. Thus levels of public spending that are still modest by continental European standards mean excruciating tax burdens on workers.

The only means to resolve this situation is to increase the number of workers relative to the number of retirees. This can be done by:

1. Compulsory euthanasia at age 75
2. Importing workers, then importing even larger numbers of workers once the previous lot get old
3. Raising the retirement age sharply

Option 1 is the most efficient solution and would immediately and greatly relieve the pressure on the entire health and social care system too, but lethal injections for Granny are evidently a non-starter. Option 2 has already been tried and rejected by the majority of the electorate. So, option 3 it is then. If the increase in state retirement age due in 2028 were brought forward to 2025, and it were then to be shoved up another year every five years, it would reach 75 by the year 2065 (so someone like me who's currently 45 would have to keep working until aged 71, unless able to fall back exclusively on our own resources.) Some solution similar to that should be enough to reduce the claimant count to manageable levels.

This would enable the Government to stabilise the system by fucking over the young and middle-aged yet again, without inconveniencing today's pensioners at all. It's the obvious way forward.

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BBC reporting £192 billion was spent on the NHS in England alone in 2020/21

This is 44% of all public spending up from 27% in 2020

This is not sustainable and we need a serious discussion on the future role and funding for the NHS

I would add I have no idea how this is addressed when even a 1.25% increase in NI next Spring is so angrily dismisses by many

True, though that's more because public spending that isn't health, pensions (and to an extent) schools have been ruthlessly squeezed for a decade or so.

In the medium term, things cost what they cost and politicians who try to buck the market get found out. In the UK, we've had a fairly long run of politicians (certainly back to Thatcher, maybe even earlier) who have been able to promise something for nothing by offering the public services which aren't properly paid for by taxes. And a lot of that excess cash has gone on pumping up house prices.

Unfortunately for Johnson and Sunak, they've ended up in Downing Street when the music is stopping. The stable solution is, bluntly, to pay more for the quality of health, social care and public realm (libraries, parks and whatnot) that we want. The nature of those functions means that there's a fairly low limit on how much efficiency you can squeeze out of the processes.But that isn't going to be popular.

In Johnson's case, at least, it couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

Who pays for it though? We've already got a huge tax burden on working people and businesses. Even if we taxed old people properly and wealth in a way that wouldn't impact investment and saving there would be a huge gap.

The answer isn't more tax it's less spending. It's time to take an axe to what the NHS is responsible and start clawing back the state pension from higher rate taxpayers in retirement. Once again, no one wants to admit it, even on here where there's no such thing as an unapproachable subject, the NHS can't keep chasing life expectancy gains. If people die at 86 instead of 88 then that's got to be accepted as the cost of having universal healthcare safety net. Investing money into hugely expensive life extending treatment and drugs needs to be discussed properly and we as a society should be a bit more comfortable with the idea that we all die.

Then bang goes the Redwall if NHS spoending is slashed and the state pension is axed. Bang goes the Tory majority too.

The Tories can afford to lose a few socially liberal libertarians like you to the LDs or Reform UK in the wealthiest parts of London and the Home Counties and still win a narrow majority.

They cannot afford to lose working class Leave voters in the Redwall to Labour and higher earning pensioners in the Home Counties to the LDs as if they do then the Tory majority goes with them and the Tories likely lose power

Do you ever think these problems are so huge that the conservative party do not have a divine right to be in power and either these issues need addressing fairly otherwise someone else will

Boris cares about being re elected not about solving big problems if they lose him votes, he is a populist after all

What's the point of being elected then?

He was elected to deliver Brexit and beat Corbyn, both of which he has achieved

Good. Can he bugger off now, then?

turbotubbs said:

Scott_xP said:

NEW: @Telegraph has seen a copy of the Government’s private impact assessment for vaccine passports.

The £££ hit on turnover… the problems outside stadiums… the fears it will drive people to Covid-risky pubs… the ??? over delivery…Quick thread👇

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/25/vaccine-passports-could-fuel-covid-cost-venues-millions-says/

Vaccine passports are solely designed to increase vaccination levels. Lots of countries are using them.

And damn, wasted my 4000th post on a reply to a scottnpaste...

I was thinking about this today. It’s the Budget this week. If we want to incentive vaccine take up, why not do it through the tax system? Give double vaxxed people a tax break, and refuseniks a tax penalty. It would be fairly easy to do: essentially everyone gets a tax penalty unless they prove their vaccination (or medical exemption) status via the NHS app, or some such, within 60 days, in which case the tax penalty becomes a modest tax break.

This removes the horrible admin burden at the point of delivery to venues etc. And it removes the element of compulsion.

I’m of the view vaxports are unnecessary, and I shudder somewhat at the paper-checking that would be required. But I could live with tax incentives, if we have to take some action to grind down the stubborn 10% who won’t get vaccinated.

Better than vax and/or mask mandates certainly - both of which are horribly illiberal.

IanB2 said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BBC reporting £192 billion was spent on the NHS in England alone in 2020/21

This is 44% of all public spending up from 27% in 2020

This is not sustainable and we need a serious discussion on the future role and funding for the NHS

I would add I have no idea how this is addressed when even a 1.25% increase in NI next Spring is so angrily dismisses by many

True, though that's more because public spending that isn't health, pensions (and to an extent) schools have been ruthlessly squeezed for a decade or so.

In the medium term, things cost what they cost and politicians who try to buck the market get found out. In the UK, we've had a fairly long run of politicians (certainly back to Thatcher, maybe even earlier) who have been able to promise something for nothing by offering the public services which aren't properly paid for by taxes. And a lot of that excess cash has gone on pumping up house prices.

Unfortunately for Johnson and Sunak, they've ended up in Downing Street when the music is stopping. The stable solution is, bluntly, to pay more for the quality of health, social care and public realm (libraries, parks and whatnot) that we want. The nature of those functions means that there's a fairly low limit on how much efficiency you can squeeze out of the processes.But that isn't going to be popular.

In Johnson's case, at least, it couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

Who pays for it though? We've already got a huge tax burden on working people and businesses. Even if we taxed old people properly and wealth in a way that wouldn't impact investment and saving there would be a huge gap.

The answer isn't more tax it's less spending. It's time to take an axe to what the NHS is responsible and start clawing back the state pension from higher rate taxpayers in retirement. Once again, no one wants to admit it, even on here where there's no such thing as an unapproachable subject, the NHS can't keep chasing life expectancy gains. If people die at 86 instead of 88 then that's got to be accepted as the cost of having universal healthcare safety net. Investing money into hugely expensive life extending treatment and drugs needs to be discussed properly and we as a society should be a bit more comfortable with the idea that we all die.

Then bang goes the Redwall if NHS spoending is slashed and the state pension is axed. Bang goes the Tory majority too.

The Tories can afford to lose a few socially liberal libertarians like you to the LDs or Reform UK in the wealthiest parts of London and the Home Counties and still win a narrow majority.

They cannot afford to lose working class Leave voters in the Redwall to Labour and higher earning pensioners in the Home Counties to the LDs as if they do then the Tory majority goes with them and the Tories likely lose power

Do you ever think these problems are so huge that the conservative party do not have a divine right to be in power and either these issues need addressing fairly otherwise someone else will

Boris cares about being re elected not about solving big problems if they lose him votes, he is a populist after all

What's the point of being elected then?

He gets to sit in the big chair.

The rest of get to cheer, or despair, according to choice (and acuity)

And the funny thing is that, for now at least, a lot of those in government are equally happy with the cheers of their supporters and the despair of their opponents.

The second of those is the odd one. I'm not sure that previous governments depended quite so much on a weakened but undead enemy at their continued mercy as this one is.

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BBC reporting £192 billion was spent on the NHS in England alone in 2020/21

This is 44% of all public spending up from 27% in 2020

This is not sustainable and we need a serious discussion on the future role and funding for the NHS

I would add I have no idea how this is addressed when even a 1.25% increase in NI next Spring is so angrily dismisses by many

True, though that's more because public spending that isn't health, pensions (and to an extent) schools have been ruthlessly squeezed for a decade or so.

In the medium term, things cost what they cost and politicians who try to buck the market get found out. In the UK, we've had a fairly long run of politicians (certainly back to Thatcher, maybe even earlier) who have been able to promise something for nothing by offering the public services which aren't properly paid for by taxes. And a lot of that excess cash has gone on pumping up house prices.

Unfortunately for Johnson and Sunak, they've ended up in Downing Street when the music is stopping. The stable solution is, bluntly, to pay more for the quality of health, social care and public realm (libraries, parks and whatnot) that we want. The nature of those functions means that there's a fairly low limit on how much efficiency you can squeeze out of the processes.But that isn't going to be popular.

In Johnson's case, at least, it couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

Who pays for it though? We've already got a huge tax burden on working people and businesses. Even if we taxed old people properly and wealth in a way that wouldn't impact investment and saving there would be a huge gap.

The answer isn't more tax it's less spending. It's time to take an axe to what the NHS is responsible and start clawing back the state pension from higher rate taxpayers in retirement. Once again, no one wants to admit it, even on here where there's no such thing as an unapproachable subject, the NHS can't keep chasing life expectancy gains. If people die at 86 instead of 88 then that's got to be accepted as the cost of having universal healthcare safety net. Investing money into hugely expensive life extending treatment and drugs needs to be discussed properly and we as a society should be a bit more comfortable with the idea that we all die.

In many areas and classes folk aren't dying at 86, though. They are dying much, much earlier. And usually at greater cost, both financially and socially.
This country has been historically abysmal at prevention.

But a lot of that stems from the taxpayer carrying unlimited liability for the nation's healthcare. It creates an entitlement culture where people stop caring for their own health when they know someone else will fix them up and other people will suffer the cost of doing so.

My health insurance in Switzerland gave me an annual refund based on my actual usage, and because I'm a generally pretty healthy person I got a refund. In the UK people like me, regardless of income, are punished for being healthy because not only do we pay over the odds for our own healthcare needs, we subsidise the obese, the smokers, the anti-vaxxers and all the other people who are a huge burden on the NHS.

So once again, we as a nation need to have a big and wide ranging discussion about what the NHS should do and whether universal healthcare is a net positive for the nation. Is it right that the healthy poor subsidise a smokers to get lung cancer treatment, I mean they have enough money to waste on cigarettes so they can bloody pay for private insurance to cover all smoking related treatment requirements.

Once again, this is the result of our creation of a society without consequences for poor decision making and now we can't afford it.

Smokers pay many times over.
And I used to remember council pools and leisure centres in poorer areas. They always seemed to be busy. And they were cheap too. Now it's private gyms in wealthy areas.
Go to any European village, there'll be tennis courts and football pitches beautifully maintained. There's much more to it than how the treatment is paid for at the end of it.

There's no shortage of football pitches and tennis courts in this country. Or basketball courts for that matter.

What there is is a shortage is of people using them.

Jonathan said:

Odd to dip in to read folks that recently promised £350M extra a week on the NHS wanting to spend less in a pandemic. Weird thing politics.

Haven't we already smashed through that £350m though? We're some way beyond that stage now.

turbotubbs said:

I know it’s only a couple of days data, although the slowdown in the increase has been coming, but it’s striking to see that none of the major iSAGE zealots have even mentioned the lower case numbers. Not a peep. Instead they seem to be complaining about allowing kids to get immunity from infection, because of all the harm it’s doing. I’m lost - is long Covid and severe Covid a big issue among kids? Generally they only experience mild symptoms. My feeling, and it’s only that, is that the iSAGE crowd are wilfully exaggerating the level of issues seen with Covid in children.
I’m sure there have been some bad cases, and I recall the death of a teenager a couple of weeks back. But are we really seeing anything other than kids getting a few days of sickness then back to normal?

In an argument as important and heated as that over restrictions, there's bound to be a lot of political cherry picking of data from all sides of the argument - and the lockdown hawks are neither immune from this nor in possession of a monopoly on virtue.

One of the things that struck me a couple of days ago seeing Prof Openshaw interviewed on the TV is the amount he chose to emphasise the 150 per day death rate as being unacceptably high. The fact that those perishing from the disease principally consist of vaccine refusers and very old people with multiple co-morbidities wasn't even mentioned, and the wisdom of starting to tumble back through a whole series of increasingly Draconian restrictions to protect them (because we all know that's what they want - the BMA has already been banging the drum for the re-imposition of social distancing) wasn't, consequently, discussed either.

Again, restrictions (at least in the initial stages) are presented as being cost-free, but I don't believe that this is the case. Bringing back widespread compulsory masking and other NPIs will destroy consumer confidence and risks wrecking Christmas for the hospitality sector for a second year running, leading to economic mass destruction, another huge Government support package for the sector paid for through more borrowing, or both. After all, once the familiar tumble backwards into lockdown starts yet again, who believes that it will stop with "Plan B"? After masks and WFH will come demands for the 2m rule, then the rule of six, then closing everything down until Easter again. You can see it coming a mile off.

I'm also very concerned about the long-term consequences of a second Winter of masking: the next argument one can see coming from the medical community come 2022 is that levels of population immunity to flu, RSV and other such respiratory nasties are now so depleted that letting them loose again would result in a massacre, and that we must therefore - quelle surprise - keep wearing masks forever. Emergency measures are one thing, but years and years of this rubbish isn't acceptable.