UK Politics

3110 readers

205 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

tom

GreatAlbatross

flamingos

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

107

Tories roasted after pledging just 900 new NHS beds after cutting 12,000 since 2010 (leftfootforward.org)

submitted 1 year ago by Syldon to c/uk_politics

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

And like everything with the Tories, it is always jam tomorrow, and no thought or willingness on how to achieve the end result.

top 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Blake 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nothing I've seen from Labour has inspired confidence that they would fund the NHS properly either. Keir made some vague statement about putting in more money, but also "reforming" and "modernising" the NHS... no, Keir, it just needs to be funded properly. It needs hugely more money, not a pittance thrown at it before leaving it to languish.

Funding for public health is very easy to justify for a state, even under capitalism - improvements in public health means that people are more productive, leading to greater incomes, which result in higher taxes without raising the rate of taxation. Many studies have been conducted into this which show that health and education spending literally pays for itself, and is even a net-positive. That's just economically, not to mention all of the extra benefits in happiness, health, security, etc. from a good public health infrastructure.

With all of that in mind, I leave as a question for the reader: why would the government effectively leave that free tax income money on the table? Assuming that they are competent and educated (which I do not doubt) and that they are aware of this (as I am sure they are, because this policy is advocated even by Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes), why wouldn't they take that win?

[–] Syldon 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

IT is being funded now. WE spend more than most other countries per capita and get much worse results with the possible exception of the USA, and yet the Tories want to pursue the US model. Why? Well because it will make them richer. They do not care that we will be more unhealthy as a consequence and it will cost us more money to follow this route.

We need to get rid of the mates infrastructure that has been inflicted on us. We also need to rethink how we do healthcare. If other countries have ideas that are clearly working then why would you not investigate that option?

As for lack of confidence, why not just do some research with the Nufield trust who benchmark how the NHS does. Working on a gut feeling is not the best way to look for the correct solution. Look at the facts and base a conclusion from that.

Edited second sentence to reflect more than most.

[–] Risk 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

WE spend more than other countries per capita

Sorry, what's your source for that? ONS says we're pretty on par with our peer countries, whilst King's Fund says we spend a fair chunk less than peer countries.

I agree with the rest of your sentiment. We need political reform to decrease opportunity for cronyism, with tighter controls that don't rely on a concept of honour.

There is an argument to be had about increasing efficiency of the NHS healthcare system - but a big part of that efficiency might come from investment in it, both in a resource sense (more infrastructure, more equipment) and a staffing sense (higher pay = retain better talent).

[–] Syldon 1 points 1 year ago

My apologies, I will edit after posting this.

That should have been more than most per capita. The Uk is currently 17th on the list per capita on the OECD and 11th on the WHO list. This is also not inflation adjusted. For what we pay our return stats are atrocious.

The Labour strategy is that we will need to lean into private health due to pressing need in the service versus our lack of infrastructure. To me this is a no brainer, but we need to remove the leeches that have latched onto the NHS. Part of that has to be reform on donations to political parties. There will be an expense to rebuilding the health system. Unless we can guarantee that it will not be sold off in future governments, that would be a totally pointless exercise. The stable door needs bolting before we put another horse in it. I am very much in favour of the NHS and its continuity. I am not in favour of lining the pockets of the Eton boys club.

We definitely need more staff training for the NHS. I firmly believe education should be free access for all citizens of the UK. If there are key roles where we need those people to work within the UK, then we must have a contract of promised time to be served with a monetary penalty in place for failing to do just that. I don't think it is unreasonable for a doctor to promise to work in the UK for 10 years after being certified. If they are not happy with that then by all means pay for your own education. Education certification should never be for just those who can afford it.

[–] Turkey_Titty_city@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

vast majority of money in the USA system goes to middle men who get rich, yep.

less and less of it goes to patients and medical staff each year.

not to mention the disparity in general medicene practical (which the bulk of patients use) and super specialties (which see 5x the pay as a general doctor), which is why have an abundance of specialty doctors but not enough primary care physicians.

[–] Syldon 1 points 1 year ago

Pharmaceuticals take a large cut of medical care in the US. The amount they charge for medicines is obscene.