The Magic Money Tree in action

jpfamps

Oh and my calculations would suggest that £350m would run the NHS for less than 24 hours.

digitalscream

axisus said:

jpfamps said:

 
UK government spent £761 billion last year, so £1 bn is about 0.13% of one years spending (and the money is being spent over several years), ie within the margin for error on the numbers, and whilst sounds a lot of money to you or I, is neither hear nor there is terms of total spending.

It would probably pay for quite a few more nurses or police though.

Not as many as you might think. The average salary for a nurse is £23k, but the cost to the NHS is closer to £30k (ancillary costs, and you need managers for them too). Then there's the cost of training a nurse - the bursary is £5k a year, so that's £15k for the degree.

So, to employ a nurse over 10 years, the cost is about £315k (assuming we're talking about long-term solutions rather than headline-pleasers). For your £1bn, you get 3174 nurses in three years' time (after you've trained them); near as I can tell, there are 228 NHS hospitals in the UK (this doesn't count GP surgeries, by the way), so that's a total of nearly 14 nurses per hospital.

In terms of the overall picture, there are about 314k nurses in the NHS, so this would represent a whopping 1.01% increase in the total; that's almost exactly the same as the natural increase in total nurses every three years anyway.

Basically, even if you spent the whole lot exclusively on nurses for hospitals, it'd make piss-all difference.

Gulliver

Evilmags said:

Austerity never happened as any rational analysis of government spending shows. It has risen every year ffs. An absolute lie. 

But it hasn't risen significantly above the levels of inflation and demand.   Thatcher in the Rye spouted on in her election campaign that they were putting "record levels of funding into schools"  -  without recognising there are record numbers of pupils in schools too, and with an adjustment to the funding formula it means on a per-pupil basis, in many schools funding is down significantly.

My school is getting a slight increase £64 per student but one of our partner schools a couple of miles away is losing £577 per student - a net budget loss of over £791,000 by 2022.

JezWynd

jpfamps said:

Fretwired said:

jpfamps said:

Indeed. And £350m of the money is meant to be going into heath care.

That will keep the NHS going for about 36 hours ..... :-)

When the NHS was launched in 1948, it had a budget of £437 million (roughly £15 billion at today's value). For 2015/16, the overall NHS budget was around £116.4 billion.

If the NHS makes no savings as per government demands and funding rises only with inflation, the estimated funding gap will be at £30 billion by 2020/21.  In simple terms the NHS will need £30 billion to stand still and so what it does now. See the size of the problem?

Absolutely, I'm fully aware of the problem.

The NHS was supposed to pay for itself as a healthier work force would be more productive. In fact within 3 years of its formation it was already having funding problems, which lead to the introduction of prescription charges.

Unless we are prepared to pay more tax, and quite a bit more tax, I can't see the problem being resolved, unless AI can increase productivity massively.

And that's assuming that health care inflation doesn't rise massively.

a plague seems quite feasible.

Fretwired

Gulliver said:

But it hasn't risen significantly above the levels of inflation and demand.   Thatcher in the Rye spouted on in her election campaign that they were putting "record levels of funding into schools"  -  without recognising there are record numbers of pupils in schools too, and with an adjustment to the funding formula it means on a per-pupil basis, in many schools funding is down significantly.

My school is getting a slight increase £64 per student but one of our partner schools a couple of miles away is losing £577 per student - a net budget loss of over £791,000 by 2022.

Public services are screwed as the population is growing - a record 500,000 in 2015 - and we are on target for a population of 70 million by 2025. That's a growth of 10 million in 20 years. The schools where I live are full and the government expects another 65,000 homes without providing more GPs, schools and other services - our hospital was closed by Labour.

My niece is a teacher and I feel sorry for her - she works under immense pressure. There's a boom in births so primary schools will be getting hammered. Most of this growth has been in England which in 2016 saw the population grow to 54,786,300. Scotland and Wales have remained fairly static. So far more money needs to be spent in England just to keep up with demand - however the Barnett Formula will hove into view.

chillidoggy

So, the bottom line is there are too many people not paying enough to support the NHS service?

Rocker

@digitascream, why do nurses need a degree? Surely empathy, kindness, patience and a willingness to do the work are the main requirements for nursing...

Fretwired

chillidoggy said:

So, the bottom line is there are too many people not paying enough to support the NHS service?

No. Think about it for a minute.

We have a perfect storm of population growth, an ageing population who are living longer, new treatments and drugs, a large number of doctors coming up for retirement and a need for new hospitals. However, we don't have enough doctors - it can take 16 years to train a doctor (if they specialise) and 8 years to get a GP. The same applies to registrars, nurses and other staff.

Money is an issue but it's not the issue. Give the NHS £30 billion ... you won't notice much difference. The buildings may get spruced up. The population will grow by another 500,000 next year and the problems will get worse.

chillidoggy

Fretwired said:

chillidoggy said:

So, the bottom line is there are too many people not paying enough to support the NHS service?

No. Think about it for a minute.

We have a perfect storm of population growth, an ageing population who are living longer, new treatments and drugs, a large number of doctors coming up for retirement and a need for new hospitals. However, we don't have enough doctors - it can take 16 years to train a doctor (if they specialise) and 8 years to get a GP. The same applies to registrars, nurses and other staff.

Money is an issue but it's not the issue. Give the NHS £30 billion ... you won't notice much difference. The buildings may get spruced up. The population will grow by another 500,000 next year and the problems will get worse.

It's clear, then. We need to cull old people. Where's Vim Fuego?

Wait, I'm getting old. There needs to be a cut-off date of say, 75.

ICBM

Population growth is actually one of the solutions, not the problem - provided they are the right demographic (mostly young earner/taxpayers) and there is investment in the infrastructure to support their needs as well as those of the ageing population - ie you have to build the housing and the schools as well as the hospitals.

That's exactly why the Germans have taken in over a million immigrants recently - they're faced with a demographic timebomb of a falling birth rate, and a longer-living pensioner class. They *need* immigrants. We do too, although less so.

We're not facing quite the same problem because we still have an indigenous population growth, but immigration is still not the problem it's usually made out to be. Immigrants overwhelming communities and services in some areas (especially the south east), very much is a problem though - and one the government totally fails to address.

chillidoggy

Tell me about it, the overwhelming is, well, genuinely overwhelming. And if they're all hoovering-up benefits and not contributing taxes, which I reckon a lot of our new locals must be, then it's a serious issue.

Fretwired

ICBM said:

Population growth is actually one of the solutions, not the problem - provided they are the right demographic (mostly young earner/taxpayers) and there is investment in the infrastructure to support their needs as well as those of the ageing population - ie you have to build the housing and the schools as well as the hospitals.

That's exactly why the Germans have taken in over a million immigrants recently - they're faced with a demographic timebomb of a falling birth rate, and a longer-living pensioner class. They *need* immigrants. We do too, although less so.

We're not facing quite the same problem because we still have an indigenous population growth, but immigration is still not the problem it's usually made out to be. Immigrants overwhelming communities and services in some areas (especially the south east), very much is a problem though - and one the government totally fails to address.

Except it doesn't add up. A lot of immigrants are filling low paid jobs and get benefits, like tax credits, as a top up. It suits big employers who can keep wages low when labour is plentiful. I agree with John McDonnell when he says low skilled immigration needs tighter control to stop the exploitation of people by big firms like Amazon with low wages and zero hours contracts. 

Immigrants do use services - they have kids, they get ill like other people, but the NHS is stretched. The NHS cannot react fast enough and stands no chance of reacting to such an explosion in demand. Budgets may be tight but no amount of cash will fix the NHS is the short term, or the education system.

jpfamps

My solution is to get more people to start smoking.

Give fags out at schools would be the way to do it.

Highly taxed product. Massive reduction in life expectancy, so saving a ton of money on pensions, long term care etc.

ICBM

Fretwired said:

Except it doesn't add up. A lot of immigrants are filling low paid jobs and get benefits, like tax credits, as a top up. It suits big employers who can keep wages low when labour is plentiful. I agree with John McDonnell when he says low skilled immigration needs tighter control to stop the exploitation of people by big firms like Amazon with low wages and zero hours contracts.  

Immigrants do use services - they have kids, they get ill like other people, but the NHS is stretched. The NHS cannot react fast enough and stands no chance of reacting to such an explosion in demand. Budgets may be tight but no amount of cash will fix the NHS is the short term, or the education system.

Certainly, but without the increase in the numbers of tax-paying workers which are necessary to offset the longer-living pensioners, it's even worse. Some of them will be indigenous, some of them will be immigrants. What's important is to stop the low-wage exploitation, not to stop the immigration - it harms indigenous workers too. And to stop the immigrants all settling in the south-east...

Fretwired

ICBM said:

Fretwired said:

Except it doesn't add up. A lot of immigrants are filling low paid jobs and get benefits, like tax credits, as a top up. It suits big employers who can keep wages low when labour is plentiful. I agree with John McDonnell when he says low skilled immigration needs tighter control to stop the exploitation of people by big firms like Amazon with low wages and zero hours contracts.  

Immigrants do use services - they have kids, they get ill like other people, but the NHS is stretched. The NHS cannot react fast enough and stands no chance of reacting to such an explosion in demand. Budgets may be tight but no amount of cash will fix the NHS is the short term, or the education system.

Certainly, but without the increase in the numbers of tax-paying workers which are necessary to offset the longer-living pensioners, it's even worse. Some of them will be indigenous, some of them will be immigrants. What's important is to stop the low-wage exploitation, not to stop the immigration - it harms indigenous workers too. And to stop the immigrants all settling in the south-east...

I don't disagree which is why I singled out low skilled immigration. But we need a strategy to generate real wealth like Germany.

ICBM

Fretwired said:

I don't disagree which is why I singled out low skilled immigration. But we need a strategy to generate real wealth like Germany.

Absolutely agreed. It will never happen with the sort of America-lite economic policies of the present government though.

jpfamps

Fretwired said:

ICBM said:

I don't disagree which is why I singled out low skilled immigration. But we need a strategy to generate real wealth like Germany.

Perhaps we could trying manufacturing some goods that people want to buy........

Gulliver

Fretwired said:

ICBM said:

Population growth is actually one of the solutions, not the problem - provided they are the right demographic (mostly young earner/taxpayers) and there is investment in the infrastructure to support their needs as well as those of the ageing population - ie you have to build the housing and the schools as well as the hospitals.

That's exactly why the Germans have taken in over a million immigrants recently - they're faced with a demographic timebomb of a falling birth rate, and a longer-living pensioner class. They *need* immigrants. We do too, although less so.

We're not facing quite the same problem because we still have an indigenous population growth, but immigration is still not the problem it's usually made out to be. Immigrants overwhelming communities and services in some areas (especially the south east), very much is a problem though - and one the government totally fails to address.

Except it doesn't add up. A lot of immigrants are filling low paid jobs and get benefits, like tax credits, as a top up. It suits big employers who can keep wages low when labour is plentiful. I agree with John McDonnell when he says low skilled immigration needs tighter control to stop the exploitation of people by big firms like Amazon with low wages and zero hours contracts. 

Immigrants do use services - they have kids, they get ill like other people, but the NHS is stretched. The NHS cannot react fast enough and stands no chance of reacting to such an explosion in demand. Budgets may be tight but no amount of cash will fix the NHS is the short term, or the education system.

Statistics from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research states that 18% of immigrants residing in the UK are in low-skill jobs, 66% are in middle skilled jobs, and 16% in high-skilled jobs.  

EDIT: sorry, for clarity the stats above apply to migrants from Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria. 

chillidoggy

ICBM said:

Fretwired said:

Except it doesn't add up. A lot of immigrants are filling low paid jobs and get benefits, like tax credits, as a top up. It suits big employers who can keep wages low when labour is plentiful. I agree with John McDonnell when he says low skilled immigration needs tighter control to stop the exploitation of people by big firms like Amazon with low wages and zero hours contracts.  

Immigrants do use services - they have kids, they get ill like other people, but the NHS is stretched. The NHS cannot react fast enough and stands no chance of reacting to such an explosion in demand. Budgets may be tight but no amount of cash will fix the NHS is the short term, or the education system.

Certainly, but without the increase in the numbers of tax-paying workers which are necessary to offset the longer-living pensioners, it's even worse. Some of them will be indigenous, some of them will be immigrants. What's important is to stop the low-wage exploitation, not to stop the immigration - it harms indigenous workers too. And to stop the immigrants all settling in the south-east...

Absolutely.

We should send them all to Scotland, plenty of room up there...........

ICBM

chillidoggy said:

We should send them all to Scotland, plenty of room up there...........

It's more that we actually need more people here. The population is declining (I think it may have gone up slightly this year, but the long-term trend is down) which has implications for tax and public spending in the same way as it has in Germany.

I completely understand why immigration is a problem where you are - the problem is not the numbers of immigrants, it's the complete failure of the government to manage them.