Nhs Funding

[dbr10]

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-cash-and-taxpayer-wallets-to-fund-nhs-cash-boost-11407277

Very balanced report by Lewis Goodall on Sky News this morning.

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

Very balanced report by Lewis Goodall

I'm hoping that was a joke.
That seems to imply that the U.K will not have to pay for any deal that is made with the E.U. I've always felt that the view that the U.K will have it's cake and eat it is actually going to cost us money, not save us money, in the same way Norway pays for it's E.U. privileges and like Norway we will not have any representation.
Although the numbers may make sense, they don't when you start looking at the cost of leaving the E.U. if we don't get a free trade deal.
Shall we discuss the W.T.O.? Liam Fox seems to think that we will carry on as we did within the E.U., that's not what the WTO think.
What about Farmers subsidies, they all seem to have been promised that the U.K. government will pay those subsidies.
The fishing industry? We sell 75% of our fish to the E.U. and E.u. fishermen are suggesting that if our fishing industry expect access to the E.U. market then their fishermen expect access to U.K. waters. Oops! Only now U.K. fishermen don't get their subsidy unless the U.K. government cough up.
Then there is regional funding, something Cornwall, the North East, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland did O.K. with, you can use Google to check the amounts paid by the E.U. and something those regions expect the U.K. government to continue paying.
It certainly doesn't mention the money that we "owe" the E.U. because of promises made back in 2013 and which the E.U. quite reasonably expect us to pay.
What about the "open skies agreement", just looking at the U.S. - U.K. routes, if an agreement isn't made before March 2019, there will be no flights because airlines like Virgin and British Airways are not British owned. The way Trump behaves means that he could overrule the agreement that we are told are close to being signed. And that's just flights to the U.S. Try buying a ticket to anywhere in Europe for after March 2019.
I automatically disbelieve everything politicians tell us, mainly from experience of the last 2 years.
Taken in isolation the figures being promised to the N.H.S. might tally with the savings in our club membership subscriptions. But go nowhere near the overall cost to the U.K. government. Sometimes I think Boris must be Theresa's special friend. I hope people can see through the deception, because that's what I think is going on.

 

[dbr10]

I'm hoping that was a joke. I hope people can see through the deception, because that's what I think is going on.

No, I just meant that the news item was quite even handed. Leave say this, Remain say that sort of thing. Otherwise I agree with you.

My view is that this is actually an unfunded spending commitment. There is no Brexit dividend. The collapse of the pound after the leave vote reflected market sentiment that future growth would be less. Growth funds the tax revenues which pay for vital Public Services. We have the lowest growth of the EU28 and the G7. The extra money will have to come from increased taxation; and, with the economy already slowing; and real average weekly earnings less than in February 2008, and working benefits cut, tax increases would slow the economy further. If it can be delivered, it is positive news. But there is really no doubt that a Brexit dividend is as believable as that famous straight banana story. Maybe we could use deficit financing. At historically low interest rates, it would be manageable, and only a small percentage of the total UK Budget. I'm not normally in favour of borrowing to spend, but it can be argued that this is borrowing to invest just like infrastructure spending.

 

[urbanracer]

The NHS budget for 2017/18 is £124 Billion. Increasing this by £20 Billion over 6 years is actually not much more than increasing the budget at the rate of inflation and probably does not indicate an increase in real terms.

In my humble opinion, it is not 'extra' money that is coming from the Eurpean subscription and any claim to the contrary is simply an 'obfuscation of the facts' ( to quote a chancellor from a different era.)

 

[lucylocket61]

There is no increase, in real terms, taking inflation into account. And they are also increasing taxes to help pay for it. From the BBC news website:

The spending plan means the £114bn-a-year budget will rise by more than 3% a year on average in the next five years.

That will mean by 2023 the budget will be £20bn a year more than it is now once inflation is taken into account.

But crucially the plan just covers front-line budgets overseen by NHS England.

About a tenth of the overall health budget is held by other bodies for things such as training and healthy lifestyle programmes, including stop smoking services and obesity prevention programmes.

this assumes inflation is less than 3% which, as we know, is unlikely in real terms, if the inflation figures arent fudged like they are now.

No mention of closing loopholes in unfair tax laws for millionaires and big businesses. This is not gift, or extra, it is less than the annual increase they give now for the NHS. I wonder if, as speculated, there will be an General Election in October?

 

[ickihun]

I'm hoping that was a joke.
That seems to imply that the U.K will not have to pay for any deal that is made with the E.U. I've always felt that the view that the U.K will have it's cake and eat it is actually going to cost us money, not save us money, in the same way Norway pays for it's E.U. privileges and like Norway we will not have any representation.
Although the numbers may make sense, they don't when you start looking at the cost of leaving the E.U. if we don't get a free trade deal.
Shall we discuss the W.T.O.? Liam Fox seems to think that we will carry on as we did within the E.U., that's not what the WTO think.
What about Farmers subsidies, they all seem to have been promised that the U.K. government will pay those subsidies.
The fishing industry? We sell 75% of our fish to the E.U. and E.u. fishermen are suggesting that if our fishing industry expect access to the E.U. market then their fishermen expect access to U.K. waters. Oops! Only now U.K. fishermen don't get their subsidy unless the U.K. government cough up.
Then there is regional funding, something Cornwall, the North East, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland did O.K. with, you can use Google to check the amounts paid by the E.U. and something those regions expect the U.K. government to continue paying.
It certainly doesn't mention the money that we "owe" the E.U. because of promises made back in 2013 and which the E.U. quite reasonably expect us to pay.
What about the "open skies agreement", just looking at the U.S. - U.K. routes, if an agreement isn't made before March 2019, there will be no flights because airlines like Virgin and British Airways are not British owned. The way Trump behaves means that he could overrule the agreement that we are told are close to being signed. And that's just flights to the U.S. Try buying a ticket to anywhere in Europe for after March 2019.
I automatically disbelieve everything politicians tell us, mainly from experience of the last 2 years.
Taken in isolation the figures being promised to the N.H.S. might tally with the savings in our club membership subscriptions. But go nowhere near the overall cost to the U.K. government. Sometimes I think Boris must be Theresa's special friend. I hope people can see through the deception, because that's what I think is going on.

I can see good cop, bad cop. For sure!

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

Interesting little picture. It took Brexit to make the government finally realise that they couldn't expect to get away with what they had been doing. Under funding the NHS, or at least cutting back on funding increases. Maybe not a bad thing after all. It's only my opinion but I just felt the report, although interesting, overlooked the other facts that would make this affirmation of the Boris Bus not look so rosy. I'm worried that it's upbeat tone may think everything is rosy in post Brexit land and I hope it is. We still don't really know, and I fear neither does the government. In fact I think they have less of clue than we do. Now for the picture.

I didn't vote Labour . . . . or Conservative. I have been known to spoil my vote because they're all as bad as each other and I never had a decent lot to choose from. I live in High Wycombe, Steve Baker is our MP, a hard Brexiter, a Tory (least of his sins LOL) who wants the E.U. destroyed. Yet the constituency voted remain, how weird is that?

Funding is obviously an issue, we could make sports injuries funded by insurance, RTAs covered by car insurance, cyclists requiring insurance to cover their injuries if at fault, in fact anybody engaging in something slightly dangerous (parachute jumping, skate boarding) should have proper health insurance. Might go a little way. Possibly more important, proper funding of social care to free up hospital beds.

 

[Boo1979]

Apparently the OBR and institute for fiscal studies are both saying a) that there will be no Brexit bonus to use for extra nhs funding and b) 4% increased funding is the minimum for the nhs to stand still.

 

[dbr10]

There is no increase, in real terms, taking inflation into account. And they are also increasing taxes to help pay for it. From the BBC news website:



this assumes inflation is less than 3% which, as we know, is unlikely in real terms, if the inflation figures arent fudged like they are now.

No mention of closing loopholes in unfair tax laws for millionaires and big businesses. This is not gift, or extra, it is less than the annual increase they give now for the NHS. I wonder if, as speculated, there will be an General Election in October?

Just read the BBC take on it.

 

[Boo1979]

[QUOTE="lucylocket61, post: 1813789, member: 41885"I wonder if, as speculated, there will be an General Election in October?[/QUOTE]

For purely selfish reasons, part of me hopes thats when they have it - Ill be on holiday in Cyprus!
I have a postal vote so would be able to vote but then totally escape all the bull**** that accompanies all elections and the deep depression that often sets in at the result

 

[dbr10]

Interesting little picture. It took Brexit to make the government finally realise that they couldn't expect to get away with what they had been doing. Under funding the NHS, or at least cutting back on funding increases. Maybe not a bad thing after all. It's only my opinion but I just felt the report, although interesting, overlooked the other facts that would make this affirmation of the Boris Bus not look so rosy. I'm worried that it's upbeat tone may think everything is rosy in post Brexit land and I hope it is. We still don't really know, and I fear neither does the government. In fact I think they have less of clue than we do. Now for the picture.
View attachment 27168
I didn't vote Labour . . . . or Conservative. I have been known to spoil my vote because they're all as bad as each other and I never had a decent lot to choose from. I live in High Wycombe, Steve Baker is our MP, a hard Brexiter, a Tory (least of his sins LOL) who wants the E.U. destroyed. Yet the constituency voted remain, how weird is that?

Funding is obviously an issue, we could make sports injuries funded by insurance, RTAs covered by car insurance, cyclists requiring insurance to cover their injuries if at fault, in fact anybody engaging in something slightly dangerous (parachute jumping, skate boarding) should have proper health insurance. Might go a little way. Possibly more important, proper funding of social care to free up hospital beds.

Yes, the Social Care issue is obviously critical.

 

[lucylocket61]

from the Guardian:

Details of how the public will be required to pay through tax rises, and the proportion of the funding increases they will pay for, will not be spelled out until the budget, because of ongoing arguments involving the chancellor Philip Hammond, Hunt, and No 10.

It is understood that a freeze on tax thresholds is being considered as one option to pay for up to £10bn of the extra annual cash injection. This would, however, mean another big policy U-turn by the Tories, who are committed to raising the tax-free threshold to £12,500 and increasing the level at which people pay high-rate tax to £50,000 by April 2020.

Its a tax rise, with no ring fencing of the money raised to make sure it goes to the NHS.

The independent Health Foundation cast doubt on whether the cash would be enough, suggesting any increase that fell significantly below the 4% extra a year that had been demanded by Hunt would not lead to improvements.

Anita Charlesworth, the charity’s director of research and economics, said: “Increases of 4% a year above inflation are the minimum needed to allow the NHS to improve and modernise.

thats a4% increase above inflation needed, not just a weeny increase to keep up with inflation

 

[dbr10]

[QUOTE="lucylocket61, post: 1813789, member: 41885"I wonder if, as speculated, there will be an General Election in October?

For purely selfish reasons, part of me hopes thats when they have it - Ill be on holiday in Cyprus!
I have a postal vote so would be able to vote but then totally escape all the bull**** that accompanies all elections and the deep depression that often sets in at the result[/QUOTE]You have my sympathies. I was in Norway for the Royal Wedding. It wasn't far enough away.
Maybe we can console ourselves with the thought that all political careers end in failure.

 

[dbr10]

from the Guardian:



Its a tax rise, with no ring fencing of the money raised to make sure it goes to the NHS.



thats a4% increase above inflation needed, not just a weeny increase to keep up with inflation

It should at least be ring fenced to make sure it goes where it's needed.

 

[ickihun]

Interesting little picture. It took Brexit to make the government finally realise that they couldn't expect to get away with what they had been doing. Under funding the NHS, or at least cutting back on funding increases. Maybe not a bad thing after all. It's only my opinion but I just felt the report, although interesting, overlooked the other facts that would make this affirmation of the Boris Bus not look so rosy. I'm worried that it's upbeat tone may think everything is rosy in post Brexit land and I hope it is. We still don't really know, and I fear neither does the government. In fact I think they have less of clue than we do. Now for the picture.
View attachment 27168
I didn't vote Labour . . . . or Conservative. I have been known to spoil my vote because they're all as bad as each other and I never had a decent lot to choose from. I live in High Wycombe, Steve Baker is our MP, a hard Brexiter, a Tory (least of his sins LOL) who wants the E.U. destroyed. Yet the constituency voted remain, how weird is that?

Funding is obviously an issue, we could make sports injuries funded by insurance, RTAs covered by car insurance, cyclists requiring insurance to cover their injuries if at fault, in fact anybody engaging in something slightly dangerous (parachute jumping, skate boarding) should have proper health insurance. Might go a little way. Possibly more important, proper funding of social care to free up hospital beds.

They may ask diabetics to cover their lifestyle risks with insurance too. They are ignorant where blame is concerned.
If only I could prove I had mine in childhood but type2 is what it is so looking forward, not back. But forward thinking isn't looking good for us type2s. Restriction is going to get worse. That's why I'm desperate to receed as much of my IR now.

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

I did read somewhere that the U.S. complained to the W.T.O. that the U.K. "subsidises" it's industries by providing it's workers with health care (not sure what they thought National Insurance means). The E.U. negotiated a deal with the E.U. to exempt it's member states and allow them to trade under W.T.O. rules. This could end after Brexit. I need to find a reliable source to back that up.

The government would be only too pleased to change the way the N.H.S. works.

 

[dbr10]

I did read somewhere that the U.S. complained to the W.T.O. that the U.K. "subsidises" it's industries by providing it's workers with health care (not sure what they thought National Insurance means). The E.U. negotiated a deal with the E.U. to exempt it's member states and allow them to trade under W.T.O. rules. This could end after Brexit. I need to find a reliable source to back that up.

The government would be only too pleased to change the way the N.H.S. works.

Let us know.

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

They may ask diabetics to cover their lifestyle risks with insurance too.

So long as it's based on lifestyle and not medical conditions, bring it on! LOL

 

[ickihun]

So long as it's based on lifestyle and not medical conditions, bring it on! LOL

True.
I think that's hitting it on the nail. The underwriters can be putting profit first, as always so they will pinpoint conditions for premiums. Diabetes is very expensive. Insulin has risen in cost, again.

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

Let us know.

Did find a little bit extra. Basically the W.T.O. do not like the idea of subsidies. In 2008 the U.S. were negotiating with the W.T.O. because they were trying to liberalise their own health care system, even to the point of having a National Insurance. Those negotiations fell apart without agreement. Therefore the U.S. complained that they were only trying to get what many countries, also members of the W.TO. already had, the U.K. being part of the E.U. basically had exemption. That, in theory has to be negotiated if we want to trade under W.T.O. rules. As the W.T.O. don't like subsidies because it creates an unlevel playing field, this could also apply to Agriculture and Fisheries unless an agreement is reached. Tricky one eh? I think we need at least 32 David Davies to negotiate (32 is the number of different sectors relating to EU law). You might find https://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html, if you're interested in the EU and it's workings. Much more to it than meets the eye.