Search results

The NHS is underfunded, you’re right. The argument is this: is our current funding model sustainable? We need more hospitals We need more frontline staff We need more equipment Our clinical staff deserve higher wages and better working conditions Now, this will cost a lot of money and the NHS...

No, most European systems have universal social insurance systems that is free at the point of use. The funding model is slughtly Singapore has a mandatory health savings that functions similar to NI but patients can withdraw that to pay for private care should they need. Australia utilises a...

That’s such a blatant politicians answer. Do you accept the NHS doesn’t achieve the best health outcomes in Europe if you’re shifting the blame on poverty on the outcomes? Does the NHS and Britain as a country have nothing to learn from anyone else? Come on, don’t back down now when you’ve...

Since you’ve done your research and appear to to be an expert, I’d like your help support answering the following: 1. Why is the UK the only country in the developed world to fund healthcare via direct taxation? 2. Where do our healthcare outcomes compare internationally? Pre-2010 as well as...

Yes, every doctor and physio I know who works in the NHS seems to think there’s too much middle management. All of whom, for your context, are of the Labour left / Greens.

My point now is that you look rather silly for telling me to ‘do some real research’ for citing one Telegraph article which was probably quoting the NHS itself. This is what happens when you dismiss a source bc you don’t like it rather than the merits of what it’s saying.

We’re all ‘legacy’ fans according to the big wigs and analysts at these big Prem clubs. Unfortunately.

Like the NHS own workforce statistics that states 52% of its 1.4 million headcount is professionally qualified clinical staff... So the original claim of about half the NHS staff being managers, administrators and non-clinical was right?

How ignorant. I wouldn’t dismiss something out hand because The Guardian said something I disagreed with. Prove it wrong. Both parties agree that the current system is unsustainable so by all means, pretend that all is well. We’ve got a few parliaments to ‘fix’ the NHS before there’s a serious...

Yes, and about half of people employed by the NHS are managers, administrators and non-medical professionals. To me, a 50:50 split of medical and non-medical seems disproportionate. Yes, you obviously need a bureaucracy to keep things ticking over but not 50:50.

Its main expenditure is on staffing, 40% of its entire budget… The NHS is the biggest employer not just in the UK, but the whole of Europe.

How do you do that without massively increasing government expenditure? On this thread, we’ve got to better fund; the NHS, state schools, universities, pensions and housing. We have the highest tax burden since WW2, stagnating wages, a budget deficit, an aging population and on top of that...

No you’re not paying the government at all… You take a loan from SFE which is privatised and the government is the guarantor of the loan. Individuals pay the unis which are essentially private entities which is why universities rely on wealthy international students to increase their tuition...

State schools do have a similar status to charitable status but they don’t need to register with the Charity Commission. They register directly with the DoE. Most educational materials are VAT exempt too. Universities too, are ‘exempt charities’ so the next logical step would be to charge...

I don’t disagree at all. You’re making this argument whilst simultaneously holding the view that this VAT increase won’t force people out private education. To put one child through private education you’re looking at £3k per year. Secondary school is between 5-7 years so that’s a commitment...

Is that equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? Would you rather lower standards of educational outcomes if it meant more equity than higher standards across the board at the cost of more inequality? The two go hand in hand unfortunately. This policy is regressive, not progressive.

I’m curious, why?

You may have missed the point… Well, £3,000 per child, per year is a steeper increase than the energy bills. It’s a 5-7 year commitment for most families if it’s just secondary school.

By making private education more unaffordable for upper working and middle class families? If anything, a policy should be looking to make private education more affordable or accessible for working class families. If @SIR ERNIE’s case study is replicated up and down the country, it’s a policy...

The principle being envy.