Dispatches - NHS in Crisis

[mickythefish]

Vasco said:

So how does Germany keep it separate ?

https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/germany/individual/other-taxes

''Health insurance: 14.6%, up to an income ceiling of EUR 58,050 annually. A contribution of 7.3% each is borne by both the employer and the employee.''

''Long-term care insurance: 3.05% (3.4% for childless individuals, beginning with age 23), up to an income ceiling of EUR 58,050 annually. The contribution is borne 1.525% by the employer and 1.525% (1.875% for childless individuals, beginning with age 23) by the employee.''

seems pretty clear to me, now and try and wprk out UK tax system

[740EVTORQUES]

But aren’t overall taxes higher in Germany than the U.K.?

https://expatrist.com/taxes-in-germany-vs-uk-lets-...

In no small part because of the relatively large social taxes you outlined.

[Zaichik]

740EVTORQUES said:

But aren’t overall taxes higher in Germany than the U.K.?

https://expatrist.com/taxes-in-germany-vs-uk-lets-...

In no small part because of the relatively large social taxes you outlined.

like a lot of Europe, taxes are much higher for average and low earners and the highest rates kick in at a much higher level than in the UK where average and lower earners pay very little income taxes with the highest burden falling on above average and higher earner from quite a modest income level (in comparison to much of Europe).

If we want the government to spend more in the UK the average and lower earners need to pay more - perhaps through reducing the personal allowance which is already taken away from higher earners.

[mickythefish]

740EVTORQUES said:

But aren’t overall taxes higher in Germany than the U.K.?

https://expatrist.com/taxes-in-germany-vs-uk-lets-...

In no small part because of the relatively large social taxes you outlined.

half of our current taxes go on social schemes. 1 trillion.

there is a problem, NHS, lets try and solve it instead of arguing. Allocating specific taxes adds accountability as well, people can challenge where money goes.

Also why pump people full of drugs, why not offer very cheaper alternatives, like free exercises , gym etc

We should be concentrating on making our future generations more healthier as well.

[740EVTORQUES]

mickythefish said:

half of our current taxes go on social schemes. 1 trillion.

there is a problem, NHS, lets try and solve it instead of arguing. Allocating specific taxes adds accountability as well, people can challenge where money goes.

Also why pump people full of drugs, why not offer very cheaper alternatives, like free exercises , gym etc

We should be concentrating on making our future generations more healthier as well.

I’d like to think it’s a good natured debate rather than an argument!

No one would dispute that prevention is an essential part of it, just look at the rates of T2DM for example. There’s plenty of evidence that diabetes can respond very well to exercise and weight loss, to reduce insulin resistance for example, the late Dr Mosley wrote copiously about that. You just need to question everyone you reach for a food that is in a wrapper whether there is a non processed alternative. But processed food is nice, and addictive, so legislation as well as education is probably needed. Things like mandating that fresh fruit is available prominently at low cost anywhere that snacks (crisps, chocolate) are sold, that sort of thing.

Exercise is great and increasing cycling rather than driving with cycle to work schemes etc is all good, but diet is also hugely important, reducing processed and high glycemic index foods eg by taxing them.

Shame the smoking ban didn’t make it in time before the election, the Australians have just made vapes (there’s a health crisis coming) prescription only, great idea and we need to try to reduce alcohol consumption too. Cannabis related lung disease makes me very cautious about decriminalisation, even if you doubt the mental health issues it can cause.

Just think how far we’ve come in only a generation with banning junk food advertising to kids yet rates of obesity continue to rise?

So yes, a lot can be achieved with better health initiatives and prevention, and hopefully the new labour Government with a likely large majority will be able to take some decisive action.

But there’s a huge amount that will still need expensive treatment, and the expensive drugs and operations will still be needed as the population ages.

Pilates isn’t much use if you need chemo to be blunt. Both are needed.

[tele_lover]

740EVTORQUES said:

Theres a very simple chart showing the correlation between labour and conservative governments and waiting lists. Now obviously there are lots of other external events to cloud the issue and correlation is not causation, however as someone who has (and still does) worked in the NHS on the front line for the past 35 years or so, I can vouch for the fact that this is backed up by the real world experience.

Anybody can spend money to reduce waiting lists.

The trick is doing it without bankrupting the country. Labour tend to struggle at that.

I'm not a huge fan of the Tories since Cameron because most of their MPs are centrist, globalist metro elites. However, Labour are fking terrifying. A significant number are naive (as many left wing people are) take for example AR and her nuclear disarmament. And a significant number hate Britain.

I'll take incompetent/selfish over naive & traitorous any day.

[tele_lover]

740EVTORQUES said:

Zaichik said:

mickythefish said:

nearly 3 trillion in debt
stagnated economic growth
printing money at levels never see before
nhs crumbling with massive waiting lists, and massive underfunding
massive immigration issues
nhs dentist issues
nhs doctor issues
poverty rising
massive inflation, due to printing money
100 billion wasted, plus 1.4 billion ppe wasted. billions wasted on CV stupid schemes.
prisons failing
schools failing

I think i'll take my chances

Lots of billionaires and millionaires have done well though.

people ain't voting labour becuase they like the party, they are voting because the Tories are absolutely hated by the vast majority for their failing the country,

Edited by mickythefish on Monday 1st July 10:43

I really don't think any of these would have been materially different had Labour been in office through the years following the financial crash and then covid. Indeed based on what they pushed for in opposition, several may have been considerably worse.

The reality we face today is no different from most other western democracies and the incumbent gov will pay the price. Whether Labour can improve things with out salting the earth for future generations is another matter - I hope they can

I suspect the attitudes of the two parties to various parts of out economy are part of the problem.

Look how the Conservatives lapped up the wealth creation trickle down economics of Liz Truss, and clearly see spending on things such as social care as a necessary evil, rather than a force for good. A force for good which benefits us all, unlike the rather narrower groups that benefit from traditional economic success.

Just look how when teachers or nurses or doctors ask for more pay, in the context of a recruitment and retention crisis, the talk of retaining talent somehow is not relevant, whereas in the city it's a valid reason for increasing pay and lifting caps on bonuses?

A nurse or a care home worker generate wealth through their activities, it's just not measured in the same way as a hedge fund manager. I doubt many Tory politicians would agree with that statement. But it's true and until it is reflected in policy nothing will improve. I think Labour get that.

What wealth does a care home worker generate?

[mickythefish]

I think a lot of people don't care about NHS as they don't need it. When the do that's the issue. Try calling an ambulance see how many hours you wait.

It is shocking really how little people nowadays give a fight to things that matter. I think consumerism is a great distraction to real issues.

[tele_lover]

740EVTORQUES said:

A teacher generates wealth in terms of growing the capacity of the next generation.

What percentage of the UK population use their secondary school education (excluding IT, basic reading/writing and the odd arithmetic)?

Hardly any

[borcy]

tele_lover said:

What percentage of the UK population use their secondary school education (excluding IT, basic reading/writing and the odd arithmetic)?

Hardly any

Sounds ripe for cutbacks?

[tele_lover]

mickythefish said:

The biggest issue is constantly printing money, then giving money away, that has driven this cost of living crisis, and is proper moronic, again only serves to really help people higher up the chain. Tesco made massive profits whilst people are struggling for example .

The cost of living crisis is mainly inflation from energy costs due to Ukraine and thd cost of Covid.

And the only thing the Government did wrong was to not renew enough nuclear power stations.

[pavarotti1980]

tele_lover said:

What percentage of the UK population use their secondary school education (excluding IT, basic reading/writing and the odd arithmetic)?

Hardly any

It is giving people an academic level of achievement to allow them to progress their careers in whichever field they wish to go into. You might not use anything from your GCSE maths but pass it and it opens the door to do A Levels and then higher education.

[andyA700]

pavarotti1980 said:

tele_lover said:

What percentage of the UK population use their secondary school education (excluding IT, basic reading/writing and the odd arithmetic)?

Hardly any

It is giving people an academic level of achievement to allow them to progress their careers in whichever field they wish to go into. You might not use anything from your GCSE maths but pass it and it opens the door to do A Levels and then higher education.

Yes, but shortsighted people don't see that, they think that state education is a waste of time and teachers are a waste of space and money. What they fail to acknowledge, is that without basic education, we wouldn't have any doctors, nurses, engineers, scientists, designers, pilots, surgeons etc., etc., etc.

[tele_lover]

pavarotti1980 said:

tele_lover said:

What percentage of the UK population use their secondary school education (excluding IT, basic reading/writing and the odd arithmetic)?

Hardly any

It is giving people an academic level of achievement to allow them to progress their careers in whichever field they wish to go into. You might not use anything from your GCSE maths but pass it and it opens the door to do A Levels and then higher education.

I didn't say there weren't formal requirements for them. I implied the whole system is pointless.

Most of the population do not use their education once they leave school or university. Most jobs do not require it.

School would be better suited teaching many about business/money/health.

Only a very small group actually utilise what they received.

[tele_lover]

andyA700 said:

pavarotti1980 said:

tele_lover said:

What percentage of the UK population use their secondary school education (excluding IT, basic reading/writing and the odd arithmetic)?

Hardly any

It is giving people an academic level of achievement to allow them to progress their careers in whichever field they wish to go into. You might not use anything from your GCSE maths but pass it and it opens the door to do A Levels and then higher education.

Yes, but shortsighted people don't see that, they think that state education is a waste of time and teachers are a waste of space and money. What they fail to acknowledge, is that without basic education, we wouldn't have any doctors, nurses, engineers, scientists, designers, pilots, surgeons etc., etc., etc.

Why wouldnt we have nurses without basic education?

[Ken_Code]

tele_lover said:

I didn't say there weren't formal requirements for them. I implied the whole system is pointless.

Most of the population do not use their education once they leave school or university. Most jobs do not require it.

Mist jobs don’t require being able to read, write, tell the time or count?

[Ken_Code]

tele_lover said:

Why wouldnt we have nurses without basic education?

Because their job requires them to be able to read and write.

[pavarotti1980]

tele_lover said:

I didn't say there weren't formal requirements for them. I implied the whole system is pointless.

Most of the population do not use their education once they leave school or university. Most jobs do not require it.

School would be better suited teaching many about business/money/health.

Only a very small group actually utilise what they received.

I didn't mention formal requirements, but they are base for further learning hence their broad nature which will allow for a more focussed education as you progress through education (hence why you do 9/10 GCSEs, 3/4 A Levels, 1 degree or HE course)

andyA700 said:

Yes, but shortsighted people don't see that, they think that state education is a waste of time and teachers are a waste of space and money. What they fail to acknowledge, is that without basic education, we wouldn't have any doctors, nurses, engineers, scientists, designers, pilots, surgeons etc., etc., etc.

100%

[tele_lover]

Ken_Code said:

tele_lover said:

I didn't say there weren't formal requirements for them. I implied the whole system is pointless.

Most of the population do not use their education once they leave school or university. Most jobs do not require it.

Mist jobs don’t require being able to read, write, tell the time or count?

I said secondary education.

I also said excluding basic reading, writing and IT.

[Ken_Code]

tele_lover said:

Ken_Code said:

tele_lover said:

I didn't say there weren't formal requirements for them. I implied the whole system is pointless.

Most of the population do not use their education once they leave school or university. Most jobs do not require it.

Mist jobs don’t require being able to read, write, tell the time or count?

I said secondary education.

I also said excluding basic reading, writing and IT.

You did, and then went on to talk about them using their education at all. It’s still there in the post I responded to.

You seem unable to understand that just because your job requires no education that that doesn’t apply to most people. Claiming that nurses only need a primary-school level education is ridiculous.