Culturally, those countries see poverty as a personal failure rather than a state responsibility. And with the increase in foodbanks and homelessness, we can hardly say the British system isn’t a failure.
As for America:
Almost no one paid that tax. And as always, with higher tax rates you will find higher occurrences of tax avoidance and evasion in some cases. Mix in the extremely good living standards in the US compared to the still-smoking ruins of Europe, why would anyone wealthy leave America?
What persecution are you talking of? And assuming every claimant is a genuine person in need is just as naive as assuming everyone is trying to scam the system.
Tax avoidance and the welfare system are not linked. There is no reason for it to be one or the other, and it’s a dangerous line of thought trying to blame the highest tax payers for state issues as they will be paying the most into the system, while taking the least. Even if they are on lower bands, as it’s % based, they’ll still be paying far, far more than the average worker.
I think that actually we have one of the better tax systems in this country the levels of tax are easy to understand and its pretty transparent with lots of info that’s easily accessible.
The way our tax is spent is also well documented and without it we would not have a lot of the things we take for granted the NHS for example would go.
That’s because idiot business people are in charge of running the hospitals and not medical professionals no a tax issue many UK residents would be screwed without the NHS as a free service paid for by tax.
Edit: over a recent period I have used both NHS and private health care for surgery and treatment and I have been for more impressed with the NHS that I didn’t have to pay for than the private. So something must be going ok
In all seriousness, having the doctors “run” the NHS would in all likelihood ensure it goes kaput - let them do what they do best, help save lives.
That being said, those currently running the NHS aren’t business people - sure they have had a little experience (example being the current Secretary of State for Health and Social Care) but they didn’t build the company themselves, or IMO do much to actually “run” the companies they were at. They are politicians who shouldn’t be running a business, whether that is a public service or not.
If you were to put an actual businessman/woman in at the helm and was told that you need to steady the ship and sort out the issues - I think it could actually be done.
Business people are not always the best at the helm either. There are a lot of asset stripping business people which would destroy the NHS, its founding principles and hurt the people it cares for. Seeing how the US health system is run shows this.
It takes the right person to run the right organisation, whatever their background.
The absolute best NHS care I have ever received has been from private sector providers working under the NHS logo (and of course free at the point of delivery). Sentinel Healthcare and Express Diagnostics here in the South West are very good, with minimal delays, friendly staff and very good follow-up.
As for the worse care I have ever received, that has always been from the public sector NHS. Several members of my family work for the public sector NHS, and even they say the same, the feedback from patients generally favour the private providers. Even those who are against privatisation often praise “NHS” clinics that they don’t realise are run by the private sector.
Many of the private providers send you a message and email with a link to a survey at the end of every appointment, and I have been told that they get sanctioned by the NHS.
I believe the private sector mentality helps a lot. These private providers know that if they fail to stay within budget and provide a good level of care, the ratings from patients will drop, and they will lose the contract, and their own job. This is bound to focus the mind.
I once asked for a feedback form at my local public sector NHS hospital and received a look of absolute contempt, like I should be grateful they exist and should be silent.
I would only support privatisation as long as there is a mechanism to remove failing providers, that patient feedback continues to be used as the primary method for deciding whether a provider is failing, and the NHS charter is upheld in full. Care should continue to be free at the point of delivery.
You would be surprised by how many NHS staff share this view (I know a fair few), although they are scared to speak out, in fear of upsetting the militant unionised elements.
As for UK taxes in general, I think we get a good deal. The rates are competitive.
Because of agenda for change, all frontline NHS staff in a service are transferred to the private owned company on a contract being won and moved away from the NHS.
Meaning it’s the same service, delivered by the same people, just at a cut rate. Savings are being made somewhere, whether you view that as waste being cut or not will likely depend on your political stance.
I’m generally against gradual privatisation of our utilities and services, especially when I see services being run down in my local area and doctors being forced to amalgamate to cut costs. I’d sooner see bonuses out of some (let’s face it) Tories pockets and being reinvested back into the service to make it the best it can be, or spent on further improving staffs pay, wellbeing, facilities and training.
I’m interested to know which services have ceased to be true-NHS (for want of a better term) and have become privately owned organisations.
Separately, there’s a real misunderstanding about what private means. Privately-run mental hospitals, particularly, of which there are many, are funded by the NHS commissioners. This is largely because it’s more cost effective to have hospitals built by the private sector and then the beds bought by the public sector, than for the public sector to attempt to build them themselves. Less financial risk to public funds.
The private (or independent) sector is under as much or in my experience, more, scrutiny by the regulatory authorities - the CQC - than are “NHS” hospitals.
For that reason, private sector services are often ahead of the game in terms of clinical or patient-focused initiatives. What’s missing, is the genuine collaboration between public and private sector (amongst other things ).
Sadly not true in other countries, such as Switzerland and Singapore. The reality is, public jobs need to be as competitive as private ones, otherwise you’ll always get the chaff to run services that the entire country depends on!
Have you seen the salary for a GP?!
The NHS is horrifically mismanaged. No one is making money - it’s simply being pissed away through absolute idiocy and incompetence. The easiest recent example I can point to is the notice in Dec '18 banning the purchase of new fax machines in the NHS as they are still using thousands
I’m always intrigued when people have issue with GP pay. How much do you feel they should get paid?
GP training (10 years in total) in a nutshell: 5 years of medical school, 2 years Foundation training then 3 years of GP training.
After that, the salary is £57,655. My salary from August (7 years since starting med school) will be £37k
Definitely not a meagre salary, but for 10 years of training and looking after people’s health, it pales in comparison to if I spent 10 years working in The City.
Does the £57,655 increase as time goes on? and is this a “set” figure i.e. irrespective of where you are a GP.
I tend to see familiarities in the time taken to become a lawyer for instance and am shocked in the difference between locals for trainee pay let alone any form of seniority.
Thanks for the clarification - similar set up to a lawyer then, although there is major disparity between where and who you practice with as lawyers.
Another “out of interest” question - how much does it cost to get to the point of a “trainee GP” - is it all government funded (but then eventually paid back)?
It’s not necessarily being pissed away, the nhs simply doesn’t get enough money. Realistically I expect for the nhs to survive people will need to double the tax on wages which are sent to the nhs. so something like an extra £200 a month on average per person to properly fund the nhs.
From a lot of my experiences, they shouldn’t be paid. I’m waiting for the day that IBM Watson or Babylon Health’s ML solution can step in and do their job better and quicker.
THEY ARE USING FAX MACHINES IN THE 21st CENTURY. That is pissing money away. The hiring practices for temp nurses, which results in one temp nurse costing more than a full time one, is pissing money away. Having purpose built hospitals that are too expensive to run from the outset is pissing money away. The NHS needs to be demolished and rebuilt from the ground up.
Surprised the starting salary is that low. That is a lot of responsibility for the money.
I had a much higher figure in mind for a GP (6 figures). I was basing that on the fact that senior staff at my local state secondary school are on between 90-120k. I would say a GP has more responsibility.
I’m guessing you are doing it to help people, and certainly not for the money.
They can’t replace those when there’s no money to do so.
It’s glaringly obviously that we need a huge tax increase to fund the nhs, it’s not necessarily inefficiency (though that does play a part on government run organisations), you simply can’t fund the nhs on this budget.
Would you be happy with an extra £200 a month in tax?
).
