A few points to come back on:
It would appear those that know her are saying she is hoping to get the sack so she can
So what is the answer?
Best covered at the end of the post.
From the Health Foundation:
"In 2019, the UK spent £3,055 per person, 18% below the EU14 average. Over the decade, only four countries in the EU14 spent less per head of population: Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy. Finland had very similar spending per head to the UK."
Article is here:
https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-...ext=In 2019, the UK spent,per head to the UK.
If you want to focus on % of gdp, then according to ONS:
- As a percentage of GDP, UK healthcare spending fell from 9.8% in 2013 to 9.6% in 2017, while healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP rose for four of the remaining six G7 countries.
As for 'the country simply cannot afford it', that is a political choice. Apparently we can afford to remove the cap on bankers bonuses, for example.
The cap on bankers bonuses didn't raise any money for the exchequer, and as such didn't cost anything to scrap. Probably the opposite was true (as higher bonuses mean higher taxes are paid). So not a relevant example here. But see below re tax, which i suspect is the spirit of your point.
I’ve posted the figures for health care funding before, and they’re grim.
Post in thread 'Kiers big day doesn't get off to a great start -'
Kiers big day doesn't get off to a great start -
Keyhole varicose vein procedures are available in NI, but not surgery. They are supposed to be reserved for people with skin changes. I audited the waiting list last year. 25% of long waiters didn’t meet commissioning criteria, and they all were booked by the “experts” in the regional unit.
These two posts are interesting, as it seems whilst I have stats suggesting our health expenditure is not that bad, it seems others have stats suggesting we could indeed spend more. One of the dilemma's of the internet and the infinite amount of data (much of it fake) that is available. I do hope mine isn't fake, as the source seemed OK.
But i think it is undisputed that tax as a proportion of GDP is at a post war high, so raising tax is unlikely to be the answer. And Laffer curve theory suggests that raising tax rates from here would actually decrease the tax take, due to the economic impact of high taxes. This is why very high tax economies usually don't work. The best way to increase money available to the NHS would be to grow the economy.
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/140859/economics/the-laffer-curve/
Furthermore, for those who advocate that increased spending is both the answer and feasible, could I ask what expenditure we would actually reduce as part of the political choice ? benefits ? defence ? foreign aid ? Certainly not destroying the economy with lockdowns would have helped, but that's done now. The impact of those lockdowns was way larger than the 2008 financial crisis (look at the volume of money printing, for example) and the country is in a dire financial position as a result.
And this takes me to Chippy's question as to what the answer might be. I replied to this part of the thread with an economic argument, not a health one, and others will likely know more than me on delivery of health services, but I will have a go at answering. Many argue that more competent NHS leadership and structural reforms would deliver much better outcomes for the same money. Even Wes Streeting is hinting at this, rather than increased expenditure as a way forward. I am sympathetic to this, as I think we need to move away from the obsession that the NHS being 100% publicly funded, and that this makes the NHS the envy of the world. It's almost cult like at times. I think we should look at countries that deliver the best health outcomes per unit of expenditure, and see what aspects of their structures we should copy. When lives are in danger the NHS does a phenominal job, and it i agree with this part being publicly funded. But other parts of the NHS perform much less well (eg non urgent surgery) and it is here I would look at reform.
