Reply to: The What's your favourite Jeremy Corbyn policy thread

[SueEllen]

I agree it can't work for A&E (it's not really fair on A&E staff for one), but a £5 fee for working people for a GP or consultant visit wouldn't be so bad and would not just help with the funding gap but would help reduce the number of people that don't show up.

Until you or someone close to you has suffered the effects of a tulip GP you won't understand why charging people is a bad idea. The NHS suffers from enough lawsuits already. You also don't get referred to a consultant unless you need one so there is little point charging for that.

Like with the prescription charges a simple charge like that would cost nearly as much to collect and administer as it costs, so the charge would have to be something like £50. Such a charge would mean those on minimum wage wouldn't go to the doctor so we would then have the problem of people spreading infectious diseases.

It seems to me one part of this that's clearly failed is paying for it out of general taxation. It would be better if there was a separate health care tax that was ring fenced and only spent on the NHS (or perhaps social care if required). And that would be listed on our payslips so everyone could see what it costs us.

This is what NI was originally for. Unfortunately if we had a new tax it would eventually end up like NI under some government in the future.

[VectraMan]

Disagree with this. Ensuring people are healthy and well benefits everyone. Putting people off going to the hospital is surely not the answer. It should be a national goal to fund health care for all.

I'm happy to pay more in taxes. Agree NHS and social care are in a bad way but more effective investment is required.

I agree it can't work for A&E (it's not really fair on A&E staff for one), but a £5 fee for working people for a GP or consultant visit wouldn't be so bad and would not just help with the funding gap but would help reduce the number of people that don't show up.

It seems to me one part of this that's clearly failed is paying for it out of general taxation. It would be better if there was a separate health care tax that was ring fenced and only spent on the NHS (or perhaps social care if required). And that would be listed on our payslips so everyone could see what it costs us.

[SueEllen]

ftfy

Starting with Corbyn.

[PurpleGorilla]

ftfy

[shaunbhoy]

If you want to decrease NHS spending then:
1. Introduce Euthanasia.......voluntarily at first and then see how we go.

ftfy

[SueEllen]

The NHS is very unsustainable in its present state. Various governments have used the NHS as a vehicle for garnering votes and winning elections.

The NHS concept is actually very good. The population would be more happy if they have a state funded safety net for their health issues. What needs changing is the issue of funding.

I would say, and Jeremy was actually enthusiastic about this when I last spoke to him, NHS should make the first £250 of any treatment to be self funded. Anything above that is state funded. If you go to the A&E because of a cough, get charged 50 quid. Same for flu, Gonorrhea etc etc. But if its a heart attack or cancer which potentially can cost thousands to treat, you are only paying the first 250.

Stupid idea as:
1. Those with infectious diseases won't get treatment until they have caused an area-wide emergency.
2. Those who are under 18, over 65, on low incomes or with specific exempt diseases will still have to be exempt.
3. Those who aren't in those categories but who medical staff either screw up or delay diagnosis will sue to get their initial treatment fees back, as why would you pay to see someone medically trained if they refuse to or don't have the knowledge to help you?

If you want to decrease NHS spending then:
1. Tackle the obesity problem that is causing the NHS to spend around 11% of funding on type 2 diabetes.
2. Sort out social care so people aren't bed blocking
3. Put public health spending back into the NHS rather than making local councils responsible for it - that way you can deal with 1 as well as other issues.

[woohoo]

The NHS is very unsustainable in its present state. Various governments have used the NHS as a vehicle for garnering votes and winning elections.

The NHS concept is actually very good. The population would be more happy if they have a state funded safety net for their health issues. What needs changing is the issue of funding.

I would say, and Jeremy was actually enthusiastic about this when I last spoke to him, NHS should make the first £250 of any treatment to be self funded. Anything above that is state funded. If you go to the A&E because of a cough, get charged 50 quid. Same for flu, Gonorrhea etc etc. But if its a heart attack or cancer which potentially can cost thousands to treat, you are only paying the first 250.

Disagree with this. Ensuring people are healthy and well benefits everyone. Putting people off going to the hospital is surely not the answer. It should be a national goal to fund health care for all.

I'm happy to pay more in taxes. Agree NHS and social care are in a bad way but more effective investment is required.

[woohoo]

The NHS will go under if there is no social care.

Some form of convalescence care is needed for people - elderly, disabled (physically or mentally) and just temporary broken - to keep them out of hospital and to stop them bed blocking.

The NHS either chucks people out too early so they come back, or can't find
support so they bed block and lose their mobility/catch a serious infection.

Agree with this.

[NotAllThere]

As you have seen whilst the anchors and pollesters keep saying that Jeremy is unelectable, they want their narrative to come true. For that, they campaign against Jeremy and his policies either by not giving adequate airtime or by giving airtime to people who oppose Jeremy and his ideas for social justice. Let's be frank here - we are dealing with a highly resourced well funded adverse media, who are capable of destroying our dreams.

[NigelJK]

The latter has a pretty trivial cost in relative terms, the former is a much more complex issue than just cost to the NHS

I didn't lump them together both should go. I remember being shocked at the cost of births that were for 'non-domicile' mothers. It's staggering. And that's just births. The former may be complex but the largest organisation (in terms of spend and number of employees) in the world should be able to handle that surely?

[barrydidit]

Dream spoiler

There's so much good stuff on there, I hardly knew where to start

[MrMarkyMark]

Here's a nice idea which has been submitted by some Momentum persons for a British RT to counter the establishment propaganda

As you have seen whilst the anchors and pollesters keep saying that Jeremy is unelectable, they want their narrative to come true. For that, they campaign against Jeremy and his policies either by not giving adequate airtime or by giving airtime to people who oppose Jeremy and his ideas for social justice. Let's be frank here - we are dealing with a highly resourced well funded adverse media, who are capable of destroying our dreams.

Dream spoiler

[barrydidit]

Here's a nice idea which has been submitted by some Momentum persons for a British RT to counter the establishment propaganda

A TV station like RT has been enormous successful in the recent past. However no doubt it does have a pro-Russian bias which is a problem for ordinary common people, who is unable to filter through noises and propagandas.

[d000hg]

Except for people on low incomes, presumably?

Again, like dentistry. "Do you pay for your treatments?" is always the first question I'm asked.

[vetran]

The NHS is very unsustainable in its present state. Various governments have used the NHS as a vehicle for garnering votes and winning elections.

The NHS concept is actually very good. The population would be more happy if they have a state funded safety net for their health issues. What needs changing is the issue of funding.

I would say, and Jeremy was actually enthusiastic about this when I last spoke to him, NHS should make the first £250 of any treatment to be self funded. Anything above that is state funded. If you go to the A&E because of a cough, get charged 50 quid. Same for flu, Gonorrhea etc etc. But if its a heart attack or cancer which potentially can cost thousands to treat, you are only paying the first 250.

And those with infectious diseases won't go. We can't stop our kids being infected by head lice despite nearly nightly hair combing because one or two kids parents don't bother. Just wait till TB etc. start going untreated.

If Health Tourism is a non event make all Visa's conditional on having a valid private health insurance. Everyone should either prove they have rights to treatment or give their insurance details. Those that don't have rights or Insurance should be accounted for. I suspect the £2Billion is the tip of an Iceberg.