Tristram Hunt Labour MP stands down

[Hastings gull]

And whilst you're employed you and your employer share a 3% unemployment insurance and for the first two years you will get 60% of your salary. After this you will go onto the regular benefit which is less. The rules are quite tough and cause some controversy as you have to prove you're trying to find work and not turn down "menial" jobs.

Like you, I think the system here is good and the service is excellent. But you cannot escape the fact you will be paying a lot more for it. I think the current NHS has had its day but this does not mean it needs to be privatised. There are other public models out there which could be picked off a shelf. You could even think one up for yourselves.

Again many thanks -you are spoiling me! I do agree that it is best to keep profit out of health -there are too many risks involved. A non-profit insurance system might be better, and folk would have to be prepared to pay more, and I think that with education, they might, IF they see that the service genuinely reflects their increased expenditure.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Back to the By-Election,as i understand it the actual seat of Stoke Central will go by 2020 as of boundary changes. Talking to a few Stoke people that i know from the area concerned if Labour pick a candidate like a John Mann they will hold the seat anything other than that and Ukip may well surprise them. It is a seat that does not take kindly to an "educated Liberal who knows best".

 

[beorhthelm]

Like you, I think the system here is good and the service is excellent. But you cannot escape the fact you will be paying a lot more for it. I think the current NHS has had its day but this does not mean it needs to be privatised. There are other public models out there which could be picked off a shelf. You could even think one up for yourselves. Or just take it out of the hands of politicians and properly organise and fund it.

sounds an awfully lot like privatising. why must a heathcare system be wholey owned by the state, when there are so many models are not?

 

[drew]

Hello HT,

I, like you, am an admirer of the German system, and you are right in that it will cost more, but be so much more worth it to avoid the endless controversies. As a matter of interest, how does the system work for those who cannot pay for the Krankenkasse because they are unemployed, say.There will always be those who won't -what happens with them ?

I don't profess to know how the German system works but I can't understand why you are prepared to pay more for it rather than pay an equivalent amount for our own system? According to Wiki, per capita, we spend $4003 but the Germans $5267 which is about 30% more than us. In terms of GDP they spend 2.2% more which, if you applied that to our existing GDP would equate to an extra $59b (about £48b at todays rates). A very simplified way of looking at spending. The problem with the NHS is that it is a political football.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I don't profess to know how the German system works but I can't understand why you are prepared to pay more for it rather than pay an equivalent amount for our own system? According to Wiki, per capita, we spend $4003 but the Germans $5267 which is about 30% more than us. In terms of GDP they spend 2.2% more which, if you applied that to our existing GDP would equate to an extra $59b (about £48b at todays rates). A very simplified way of looking at spending. The problem with the NHS is that it is a political football.

You can't understand why I am prepared to pay more tax? Put simply its quality of life. I pay way more tax here than in the uk, seriously it's a hell of a lot more. But things work for us and I have no issue paying the extra.

Totally agree with your last sentence.

 

[drew]

You can't understand why I am prepared to pay more tax? Put simply its quality of life. I pay way more tax here than in the uk, seriously it's a hell of a lot more. But things work for us and I have no issue paying the extra.

Totally agree with your last sentence.

My post was directed at Hasting Gull who wants to pay more and have a system like Germany but seemingly not prepared to pay more so the uk system can work properly.

 

[Hastings gull]

My post was directed at Hasting Gull who wants to pay more and have a system like Germany but seemingly not prepared to pay more so the uk system can work properly.

Yes, I see what you are saying, but throughout my life, I have heard countless pleas for more cash, as I am sure you have. Can you honestly say that if a veritable fortune were made available today, that the NHS would be really efficient in the future, and that no more pleas for cash would be made next winter? Nor can I ! It is a huge monolithic state-run organisation, with much waste and inefficiency, as my GP regularly tells me, and with the drugs situation for my mother I have too have witnessed. How often do you hear of the huge amount of bureaucracy involved, which is so typical of such an organisation.
I have no objection to paying more, but strongly suspect that just putting in more cash will simply encourage the same old work practices. I do not believe that privatisation with a profit motif would be the answer, as this is risky, but the German system which involves contributions to non-profit making Krankenkassen would seem to be better. Don’t forget that I have experienced both systems, and am able to compare; on these boards over the years, you too will have read of others’ experiences with continental health systems, and all say they are superior.
I agree that politics should be taken out of the debate, but given your left-leaning views, as you have put it, are you sure that you are able to do this – your post did not reflect such a desire.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

Only seat at the General Election where the majority didn't vote. Labour should hold but UKIP if they got their act together might have a chance

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

My post was directed at Hasting Gull who wants to pay more and have a system like Germany but seemingly not prepared to pay more so the uk system can work properly.

Ah, sorry.

 

[Titanic]

Wonder if Paul Nuttall has the gonads to stand for this seat, been completely anonymous since he became leader.

Yes, yes he does.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38704082

 

[drew]

Yes, I see what you are saying, but throughout my life, I have heard countless pleas for more cash, as I am sure you have. Can you honestly say that if a veritable fortune were made available today, that the NHS would be really efficient in the future, and that no more pleas for cash would be made next winter? Nor can I ! It is a huge monolithic state-run organisation, with much waste and inefficiency, as my GP regularly tells me, and with the drugs situation for my mother I have too have witnessed. How often do you hear of the huge amount of bureaucracy involved, which is so typical of such an organisation.
I have no objection to paying more, but strongly suspect that just putting in more cash will simply encourage the same old work practices. I do not believe that privatisation with a profit motif would be the answer, as this is risky, but the German system which involves contributions to non-profit making Krankenkassen would seem to be better. Don’t forget that I have experienced both systems, and am able to compare; on these boards over the years, you too will have read of others’ experiences with continental health systems, and all say they are superior.
I agree that politics should be taken out of the debate, but given your left-leaning views, as you have put it, are you sure that you are able to do this – your post did not reflect such a desire.

The NHS is not perfect, we know that, but then you have to take into account that governments seem to fund it on the basis of what they can get away with rather than what it actually needs which means it is forever on the back foot. The argument about bureaucracy would be a valid one if it weren't for the fact that every other system also has it's bureaucracy, including the Germans. You do of course have to include in their bureaucracy the costs of administering the insurance element!

Sort out the PFI contracts, fund it to roughly the same level as other similar countries do and then let's see how the service improves.

 

[cheshunt seagull]

If you gave Tory central office planners the chance to dream up a perfect scenario I don't think they could have improved on what has happened to Labour since Corbyn first became Leader ..

As a Labour Party member I would struggle to argue with that assessment.

 

[portslade seagull]

The NHS is not perfect, we know that, but then you have to take into account that governments seem to fund it on the basis of what they can get away with rather than what it actually needs which means it is forever on the back foot. The argument about bureaucracy would be a valid one if it weren't for the fact that every other system also has it's bureaucracy, including the Germans. You do of course have to include in their bureaucracy the costs of administering the insurance element!

Sort out the PFI contracts, fund it to roughly the same level as other similar countries do and then let's see how the service improves.

I think HG has a point here. My brother in law was employed by the NHS to cut costs. You would not believe the bureaucracy he encountered from different departments. They all ordered supplys from different companies which in some cases were double to triple the cost. The consultants run things as if it is there own company. The waste was massive and still is and until some one is strong enough to sort this mess out waste in the NHS will continue. He was told to back off but did save 5M but it could have been double and that is just 1 trust