“No more money without reform,” is the actual line.
Perhaps seeing it distorted as per the headline is to be expected of the Morning Star.
you cant reform the nhs without more funding since its funding has been slashed for a decade.
agreed.
But you need a viable plan for reform. Or you are just throwing money at the problem.
Assuming the most forgiving interpretation of his statements. (not saying we should, just avoiding bias)
“No more money without reform,” could indicate he expects the NHS to agree to a policy of reform before throwing any more money at it.
The main issue is more funding won’t help; all it does is patch things up, and the root causes of the issues never get solved.
With reform, you could remove bureaucracy where it causes issues and add it where there’s breakdowns in communications instead of just adding more funding to improve capacity in one obvious area and expose a bottleneck immediately before or after it, making the majority of the extra funding wasted
It’s usually a good idea to patch a ship before it sinks, rather than re-arrange the deck chairs.
They can’t keep going with the current setup due to how changing demographics are producing increased demands on the NHS. People using the service are much older, with more complicated diseases, then ever envisioned when we designed the systems.
Beaurocracy is causing inefficiencies due to too much red tape. We spent £5.1 billion on “costs of harm” in the year 2023/24 which is quite a large amount of the £160 billion total budget. Running total of outstanding compensation claims was recently £83 billion. We need a way to fix the processes to prevent these clinical failures or find some way to cap the amount of compensation claimed.
Additionally the use of short term contractors is hemmoraging money. Often the management will give IT contracts to large firms like accenture who fail to deliver semi-regularly while charging a premium. NHS administrators frequently use the big names because they are recognisable instead of interrogating which company is actually best placed to deliver.
I’d personally be happy with looking more closely about how other European countries handle healthcare. They seem to spend less for better outcomes, while ensuring that everyone who needs medical treatment receives it. If it can save lives we shouldn’t be too ideological.
Edit: In Scotland health is devolved, we get higher levels of funding per capita due to the Barnett Formula, and lastly income tax is higher to provide more money to the NHS. Outcomes are actually worse here than in England due to mismanagement. Seems like an example of more funding not being a silver bullet.
So privatisation it is?
odd how labour has no time to properly fund the nhs but they have time pushing pro crypto bills in the commons.
Has time got anything to do with it.
Seems money is the root of the debate. More specifically, how or if it should be provided by the government.
And while I personally am pretty left of centre on taxing the rich or corporations.
It is pretty darn hard to argue Labour as it stands now has any political mandate to do so. It sure as hell was not the policy they won the election on.
never thought id see the day that the nhs was killed by a so called labour government
Oh god. I knew this Tory bot would be at it again.
Fuck off, I dont want the government throwing more money at the NHS for it to be passed to mandatory contracts with Tory chums.
I suppose you supported the billions spent on shitty COVID waste when it went via the NHS.
i mean mandatory contracts with tory chums is wes streetings dream.
Faux labor maybe
