How would we combat the rising cost of NHS treatment?

The more Trump "keeps out of the election" by saying things in support of Johnson, the more people will vote Labour.

 

Why don’t we try funding it properly.

This health tourism and we are too full is absolute bullsh17.

we have been spending approx 2% of GDP for the last decade, when the reality is its historically been around 4.5% of GDP.

It’s creaking under mismanagement and complete underfunding.

Nothing more and nothing less.

All this on top of the people who have kept it running, through sheer grit and determination (Doctors, Paramedics and Nurses) having their wages effectively slashed each year, which has lead to a crisis in work life balance and working conditions for people who should be given fcukking medals not food banks.

 

The people voting for labour would vote labour irrespective, this site is full of folk who seem to know what ‘will’ happen under the tories or what ‘will’ happen after brexit. Whilst conveniently ignoring what ‘has’ happened under labour and of course Corbyns associations with terrorist groups. The die is already cast in Barnsley and has been for generations. I know more folk who will vote the same way as their mam and dad than you could shake a stick at. Dress a donkey in a red rosette and put an ira supporter in a red rosette and they’ll turn a blind eye cos all they see is red not blue. The automatic right to vote should be withdrawn and folk should have to prove that they’ve at least a basic knowledge of what and who they are voting for.

 

It isn't as simple as just throwing money at it. Of course it’s oversubscribed, when you import the equivalent of a new city into your country every year eventually it will take its toll on your infrastructure and public services. Bound to.

 

Sounds a bit controversial but , even as a meat eater I agree up to a point*. Meat , particularly chicken, has become very (too?) cheap. in the '50's chicken was a luxury item which most people only had for special occasions. With the advent of factory farming the price (and quality) has fallen. The pressure on farmers from supermarkets forcing down wholesale prices means quantity over quality is the norm. Here in Italy Pork is high quality and relatively cheap. However, beef, is expensive so people (including ourselves) eat it less often. That said, in certain regions, including ours, Lamb(mutton) is expensive and not particularly good as it is a breed suited to making cheese (Pecorino) and males are killed too young as, obviously they are no use to the dairy farmers.

We have all got used to cheap food - too cheap in the case of meat(in spite of food banks and rising poverty) but in many cases our priorities have changed to wanting 'stuff' rather than focussing on nutrition and health. It is yet another example of education taking a wrong turn too as domestic science used to teach people how to cook cheap easy nutritious food using fresh raw ingredients rather than expensive junk convenience stuff because they dont knbow how or think they dont have the time.

*My 'beef' (pun intended) is that rather than just taxing meat/poultry there should be a set in law a range minimum wholesale price rather than farming subsidies to prevent the small farm suppliers being squeezed out of existence by the supermarkets paying too little to suppliers (below cost price in some extreme instances) . Currently it is another example of big businesses being subsidised by taxpayers.

 

should they also have a basic knowledge of immigration rules, NHS funding and the truth? asking for a friend............

 

Plus if the USA wouldn't have the NHS on a platter, why have they spent nigh on two years discussing
and reporting on the mutual " benefits" with the Tories.?

 

look at the evidence. i dare you to actually look, understand and and see why.

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-immigration-and-pressure-nhs/

 

in case you miss it.

 

What's that got to do with NHS? Chicken is too cheap so the NHS is ******?

 

A poultry figure.

 

You mean like the one that says eu law on freedom of movement means that we are obliged under eu law to allow eu citizens to come here ? Where people still think that its our fault for not controlling immigration because they don't know that under eu law we actually cant ?? That one you mean. Tell your friend to look stuff up before he forms an opinion, its quite enlightening.

 

If Alanis Morissette reads this she'll have a coronary

 

I don’t believe that any party would sell off the nhs. I think it would be political suicide. I think folk get their knickers in a twist about anything anti tory and anti bush whilst ignoring inconvenient truths about Corbyn. But as I’ve posted in my view the die has been cast for many.

 

I assume your friend missed the bit where it said that different studies disagree ??

 

OK, so different studies disagree about whether immigrants were a net contributor or not. UCL says they were, but Migration Watch (an anti immigration pressure group) says they weren't. Either way the figures are a few billion in the context of trillions and so don't have any material effect.

 

Controlling immigration is fine in principle. However, there are too many old people who had too few kids, who also had too few kids to pay the taxes required to fund the healthcare that the old people are now demanding. Very soon, 25% of the population will be retired. Unless you get more workers (and we are talking *at least* 300,000 per year earning the average wage), the only other solution is to increase taxation to increasingly higher levels.

Take your pick. Have more people paying tax, or have less people paying more tax.

 

That isn't true.


All Union citizens shall have the right of residence on the territory of another Member State for a period of longer than three months if they:

(a) are workers or self-employed persons in the host Member State; or

(b) have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State; or

(c)


— are enrolled at a private or public establishment, accredited or financed by the host Member State on the basis of its legislation or administrative practice, for the principal purpose of following a course of study, including vocational training; and

— have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State and assure the relevant national authority, by means of a declaration or by such equivalent means as they may choose, that they have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence

 

"...but its annual impact is small compared to other factors"

Within the first few lines. That bit wasn't up for interpretation- that bit is a fact. Even if it has some impact, some studies indicate that migrants contribute more- some clearly don't suggest that.

You come on here constantly going on about how Corbyn is a terrorist and how XYZ is this and that, but when faced with any evidence to the contrary you completely ignore it or go down the route of whataboutery.

Nothing wrong with having different views, but if an opinion can be fact checked and proven to not be a significant problem you lose all credibility by regurgitating the same ***** over and over and over again.

 

We could put Paul Con-a -way in charge and he could sell all the best doctors and nurses to a rival private practice and recruit young inexperienced, replacements to cover. Then tell everyone how profitable we were and about the (ahem) long term plan....easy!!