Talk of a Labour pledge to increase health spending (probably coming from a National Insurance increase) looks like it'll be met with an election pledge.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...ng-9468344.html

 

It's already known to be a vote winner and will help to create distance between the two main parties on an issue that's always important. Good move.

Any party who pledges to SONHS and tell the private sector to sod off is a-ok by me!

 

I would really love to see the NHS protected by a law that would require a referendum to undo so the Tories can't just sell bits off and screw it up every time they seize power.

probably the best policy they could announce in terms of votes (and common decency for users).

Good news indeed! I'm glad they seem to be moving away from the typical politician bullshit of thinking they can improve the NHS even with less money going into it, by some magical "efficiencies" or "reforms".

All parties need to be more honest about the NHS. They need to make it clear that he cost of providing the same level as service as now will increase steadily because of the growing number of elderly people. They then need to explain where the money will come from to provide that, whether it is increased taxation, cuts elsewhere or a combination of the two. Ideally there would also be a debate on whether some treatments should be rationed in any way. Unfortunately, I think it would be difficult to have that discussion without it descending into a slanging match about denying all treatment to obese people, smokers etc.

 

While I would oppose any routine charges, I do think it is time to consider whether, for example, people should be fined for missed appointments. Of course if that happened then, at some point, a letter asking for the money will inevitably be sent to someone who missed their appointment because they were dead. Any government introducing such a measure should simply be up front about that and admit that it is bound to happen. At the very least people need to think more about whether they really need to see a doctor. Too many people make an appointment with their GP with nothing more than a heavy cold or a bit of a sore throat and then miss it because they have recovered naturally by the time the appointment is due.

All parties need to be more honest about the NHS. They need to make it clear that he cost of providing the same level as service as now will increase steadily because of the growing number of elderly people. They then need to explain where the money will come from to provide that, whether it is increased taxation, cuts elsewhere or a combination of the two. Ideally there would also be a debate on whether some treatments should be rationed in any way. Unfortunately, I think it would be difficult to have that discussion without it descending into a slanging match about denying all treatment to obese people, smokers etc.

 

While I would oppose any routine charges, I do think it is time to consider whether, for example, people should be fined for missed appointments. Of course if that happened then, at some point, a letter asking for the money will inevitably be sent to someone who missed their appointment because they were dead. Any government introducing such a measure should simply be up front about that and admit that it is bound to happen. At the very least people need to think more about whether they really need to see a doctor. Too many people make an appointment with their GP with nothing more than a heavy cold or a bit of a sore throat and then miss it because they have recovered naturally by the time the appointment is due.

 

I'd be a bit wary of fines for missed appointments because it might dissuade people who really need medical help from making an appointment. I'm thinking especially of people with depression here; if you have trouble leaving the house and can't honestly say if you're going to be feeling well enough to go at a time you make an appointment, then something like that might well mean people don't make an appointment at all.

 

I'd prefer things like heavier taxes on things like fatty foods, cigarettes and other health risks, with all the extra money going straight to the NHS. So that people who are increasing the chance that they will end up having to rely on the NHS do indirectly pay something extra, while it still remains totally free at the point of use. The parties are probably going to have to bite the bullet and say a lot of hospitals are going to have to close too. What I definitely hope doesn't happen is we get another saga of some "reforms" or restructurings which these thinktank nerds have been so obsessed with in recent years, which we know just create a giant mess and end up wasting more money.

Edited June 3, 201411 yr by Danny

I'd prefer things like heavier taxes on things like fatty foods, cigarettes and other health risks, with all the extra money going straight to the NHS. So that people who are increasing the chance that they will end up having to rely on the NHS do indirectly pay something extra, while it still remains totally free at the point of use. The parties are probably going to have to bite the bullet and say a lot of hospitals are going to have to close too. What I definitely hope doesn't happen is we get another saga of some "reforms" or restructurings which these thinktank nerds have been so obsessed with in recent years, which we know just create a giant mess and end up wasting more money.

The NHS had the second highest approval rating in the world by 2010 - that wasn't entirely down to the increase in spending. You've got suppliers like CARE UK that took over some NHS services and actually have a higher customer satisfaction rating than the NHS while still being totally free at the point of use, while managing things like integrated social care services and healthcare. This hyperbole that all reform and all private sector involvement in the NHS is a disaster doesn't really have much root in fact. Yeah, the Tories' reforms are terrible - but that's a little bit like saying 'oh god, he ate a plateful of salt and he died. All salt is evil!!!'.

 

There are examples of private sector failure in the NHS (and education), but just as many of public sector failure, if not more. It's ridiculously reductive and simplistic to argue one side or the other is a pure good on this one and the involvement of the other only causes failure - as pretty much all of the healthcare systems in developed countries which use mixed provision can pay testament to. The point's trying to find the stage where cost is minimised and quality of provision is maximised whilst keeping services free at the point of use, regardless of the provider.

I'd be a bit wary of fines for missed appointments because it might dissuade people who really need medical help from making an appointment. I'm thinking especially of people with depression here; if you have trouble leaving the house and can't honestly say if you're going to be feeling well enough to go at a time you make an appointment, then something like that might well mean people don't make an appointment at all.

 

I'd prefer things like heavier taxes on things like fatty foods, cigarettes and other health risks, with all the extra money going straight to the NHS. So that people who are increasing the chance that they will end up having to rely on the NHS do indirectly pay something extra, while it still remains totally free at the point of use. The parties are probably going to have to bite the bullet and say a lot of hospitals are going to have to close too. What I definitely hope doesn't happen is we get another saga of some "reforms" or restructurings which these thinktank nerds have been so obsessed with in recent years, which we know just create a giant mess and end up wasting more money.

That's a fair point about missed appointments but, as long as it is relatively easy to cancel an appointment (including online and/or by text), then it shouldn't be too big a problem. There can also be provision for exercising discretion before enforcing the fine.

 

Some hospitals will indeed need to close and all parties need to address this. Every proposed hospital closure provokes a campaign opposing it even if the closure is the result of a brand new hospital being built nearby. Of course the local MP always feels obliged to support the campaign rather than trying to explain the logic behind it even if they know that the closure makes perfect sense.

The NHS had the second highest approval rating in the world by 2010 - that wasn't entirely down to the increase in spending. You've got suppliers like CARE UK that took over some NHS services and actually have a higher customer satisfaction rating than the NHS while still being totally free at the point of use, while managing things like integrated social care services and healthcare. This hyperbole that all reform and all private sector involvement in the NHS is a disaster doesn't really have much root in fact. Yeah, the Tories' reforms are terrible - but that's a little bit like saying 'oh god, he ate a plateful of salt and he died. All salt is evil!!!'.

 

The real improvements in the NHS only came after 2005 - after Blair and his line of awful health secretaries gave up with their "reforms". Before that, waiting lists were still very long, because all the extra money that was going into the NHS had to be wasted on the pointless bureaucratic restructurings and farming things out to inefficient and inexperienced private-sector. Once the Labour government got out of the way and just supplied the money and let the health professionals get on with their job, outcomes and efficiency shot up.

Edited June 3, 201411 yr by Danny