[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I'll be selective too in responding to your contribution.

Regarding the triple lock, it's the first time that a government has recognised the reduced ability of pensioners to stay abreast of inflation. True that many continue working into their seventies and beyond, but they pay tax on that which is obviously fair, and they'll pay tax on their pension increases if they are taking the pension.

On "redistribution of wealth", this usually needs a sledgehammer (of the Corbyn proposition) to bring into effect. That will result in a flight of capital and have the opposite effect of redistributing wealth. It would drain wealth and start a process of levelling everyone into penury.

We are a cog in the World's movement and farting around with the economic model/engine can be counterproductive.




---------- Post added at 08:11 ---------- Previous post was at 08:04 ----------

Oh - as regards the NHS:

It was fine until about 13 years ago when Gordon Brown got his hands on it. It was fine in the "Emergency Ward 10" days (Pre-Thatcher), when Matron ran the nurses and a Consultant ran the doctors. Now that it's full of managers, accountants and other "Yes Minister" apparatchiks, it is in a spiral of decline.

The NHS needs taking back to its original operating model. The guvmin needs to make a hypothecated contribution model (NI) that is graduated according to your highest tax rate.

Originally Posted by Hugh

You ignore the fact that the NHS has had to change to due advances in medical research and new treatments which help people survive conditions which would have been terminal before, and that people are living longer, which takes more resources.

In the 1970’s (pre-Thatcher), premature births before 27 weeks had a 80% mortality rate, now it’s 89% survival rate (unfortunately, often with ongoing medical needs).

Cancer survival rates has greatly increased, but with the associated costs.

Survival from serious accidents has greatly increased (the "golden hour"), but again, at increased costs and often ongoing medical care.

Comparing the NHS in the 70s and now is like comparing a motor car factory in the 70s and now - different needs, progress has happened, more complex and and highly technical support is often required, and things are done differently because it’s a different world.

In 1970, the U.K. child mortality rate was 21.8 per 100,00 births, now it’s 3.7. Cancer survival rates (10 year) have doubled since 1970, and in the 70s, most premature births of under 25 weeks were left to die, nowadays most survive.

Trying to retrofit what one worked under different circumstances very rarely works.

The facts you describe are not in dispute.

It's the way the NHS is run, particularly at hospital level, front line, that I am criticising. Sure technical specialists are required in addition to clinical staff but in my dealings with the NHS, I sense too high an administrative burden which reduces the money available for midwives, district nurses and all the services we enjoyed in that way 20 years ag,.