NHS

[AtW]

"The NHS in England is under financial pressure. There is an intensifying debate about whether more money is needed and if so how much.

Among the options being suggested is a dedicated tax for the health service - transparent, easily understandable and less prone to political interference, or so the theory goes. So how realistic might it be?

The ring-fencing of tax for a specific purpose is known as hypothecation. One example, though not technically a tax, is the television licence fee, which is a levy specifically to fund the BBC.

The idea of a hypothecated tax for health has been knocked back and forth between economists for many years. "

It just so happens that the yield to the government from NI, about £126bn annually, is not far off the total spend on the NHS across the UK. (AtW's comment: how convenient! )

This would reflect the original purpose of NI after World War Two, which was to allow workers to insure themselves against sickness or other loss of earnings.

The lines have since become blurred, with NI now in effect an extension of income tax.

The panel's call for more money will hit taxpayers' wallets, whether its through income tax or a new health and social care levy.

The experts believe an extra £20bn is needed for the NHS in 2020 over and above current plans, with a few billion more needed for social care.

That would represent a big hit on taxpayers, individual or corporate.

But the supporters of a dedicated health and social care tax believe it would give voters reassurance that their money was going to the right place."

Should the NHS have its own tax? - BBC News

[chopper]

Having a dedicated NHS tax wouldn't reassure me that the money wasn't being utterly wasted within the NHS on overpriced procurement, failed IT projects, insane levels of management and bureacracy.

The NHS could trivially save itself £350m a week (number picked at random off the side of a bus) just by cutting out the crap - provided it didn't spend £350m a week on PWC/KPMG consultants to do that job.

If I was sat in an A&E waiting room for several hours on a Friday night with my leg dangling off, a pan stuck to my head and suffering tremendous abdominal pain, having paid an NHS tax I would not feel in any way differently reassured compared to having paid 'tax and national insurance'.

I don't think we need lots of different taxes for each individual different thing for money to be ringfenced. The TV Licence is different, because if you don't want a telly then you don't get a TV licence. Road Tax is for people who use the road. No car? No road tax. I'm not sure NHS Tax would be quite the same level of opt-in. It is as rediculous an idea as mandatory surcharges on airline tickets.

[AtW]

Ring fencing is totally necessary, the more - the better.

[ctdctd]

I've gigged in the NHS.

It strikes me as utterly daft that the NHS Trusts have basically the same IT requirement, yet they all invent their own particular way of implementation. As their internal IT teams are unable or unwilling to carry out the implementation, so called specialist IT companies get rolled in to do it - and usually seem to cock it up!

There are many re-invented wheels in NHS IT and not many of them are round! All however are expensive.

I would have thought there would not be much effort or cost required in centrally defining an IT framework for Trusts - even if they are then left to implement it themselves. Going forward, having similar systems at each Trust would make a joined up NHS IT systems somewhat easier to achieve.

At the moment, they are still struggling to get rid of Windows XP. Gawd help us!

[MarillionFan]

Send all the foreigners home, that'll sort it.

[Chuck]

I would have thought there would not be much effort or cost required in centrally defining an IT framework for Trusts - even if they are then left to implement it themselves. Going forward, having similar systems at each Trust would make a joined up NHS IT systems somewhat easier to achieve.

I think they tried that. It cost billions and failed. That's not to say it isn't the right thing to do, just that you can't trust this vast, incompetent, organisation, and the consultancies that advise it, to get it right.

[VectraMan]

Makes sense to me. At least then everyone would have a connection with what healthcare actually costs, unlike now where it's all part of the black hole that is tax and we never know if it's being spent on medical treatments or Theresa May's shoe collection.

[motoukenin]

"The NHS in England is under financial pressure. There is an intensifying debate about whether more money is needed and if so how much.

Among the options being suggested is a dedicated tax for the health service - transparent, easily understandable and less prone to political interference, or so the theory goes. So how realistic might it be?

The ring-fencing of tax for a specific purpose is known as hypothecation. One example, though not technically a tax, is the television licence fee, which is a levy specifically to fund the BBC.

The idea of a hypothecated tax for health has been knocked back and forth between economists for many years. "

It just so happens that the yield to the government from NI, about £126bn annually, is not far off the total spend on the NHS across the UK. (AtW's comment: how convenient! )

This would reflect the original purpose of NI after World War Two, which was to allow workers to insure themselves against sickness or other loss of earnings.

The lines have since become blurred, with NI now in effect an extension of income tax.

The panel's call for more money will hit taxpayers' wallets, whether its through income tax or a new health and social care levy.

The experts believe an extra £20bn is needed for the NHS in 2020 over and above current plans, with a few billion more needed for social care.

That would represent a big hit on taxpayers, individual or corporate.

But the supporters of a dedicated health and social care tax believe it would give voters reassurance that their money was going to the right place."

Should the NHS have its own tax? - BBC News

Hypoyhication is the HMRC's prefered method of pooling taxes, this is because although they collect the tax they are not in charge of what it is spent on.
Government departments dont work in harmony, if a request for X amount of money is required then HMRC have to provide it, either by borrowing or from taxes, so the Treasury who have a very dominant role in government would never allow this to happen and have said so many times.

[AtW]

Taxpayers must have the dominant role

[filthy1980]

like many things the NHS has two fundamentals: Supply & Demand

there will never be enough Supply (money) for the NHS and Demand (sick people) will always be there

I say cut both

reduce the scope of what the NHS delivers

focus should be on saving lives, all other non health impacting services should be offered but at a cost, i.e. you can have a boob job / stomach staple on the NHS but you have to pay, introduce some free market principes into the NHS, they've got skilled resources and the infrastructure why not try and monetise it

for the long term 50 years+: reduce demand
put more money into healthy living programmes, help change the culture around diet and exercise, the healthier people keep their bodies the less likely they are to be in need of NHS services and less frequently too

oh an I would also legalise cannabis, and prescribe it as an alternative to painkillers, anxiety etc

maybe even sell it from nhs dispensaries the tax generated would be huge (as proved by Colorado in the US) plus you can reduce the demand on the NHS at the same time

no doubt the most resistant to these types of changes will be the unions but I'd cut them too