General News Thread

[Lcfcbl]

2 minutes ago, leicesterlad1989 said:

If paying £20 meant I got an appointment when required, I wouldn't be against it but in general GPs are shite. The common practice for a GP is to refer people to the hospital anyway. So it begs the question - what am I paying for? I honestly feel like GPs need to up their game first but I appreciate it's like a vicious cycle, with lack of funding etc so this could be a way to generate more money. 

 

I don't think it's a bad idea but as others have said, most wouldn't support.

I certainly do not support privatisation of the NHS in general, which I know wasn't what was asked.

 

I would argue that charging a nominal fee to see a GP would increase the quality of service because it would cut out the nonsense. I've been guilty of it myself with my kids, best be on the safe side and take them doctors when they have a sniffle. Before I get jumped on, I know you will always have an extreme example where this could be more serious but 99.9% of the time it's a sniffle. Less pointless appointments in the system, the more freedom the doctor has, the better care received.

[Tommy G]

5 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

The whole "Oh we'd all pay a small fee for a GP appointment, wouldn't we?" is the sort of misinformation that makes people think that private healthcare is a good thing.

 

It'll cost far more than that, the demand will still be very high, the quality will not improve and the poorest will be hit the hardest.

One more try then I'm done.

 

1) On your first point, this isn't related to private health care - this is a flat one off contribution to see your GP to raise revenue for the NHS. Simple

 

2) ''It will cost far more than that'' I'm not suggesting seeing a Dr will cost the NHS £20, are you talking about the general cost here or saying the policy idea I've just come up with will be more than £20 - because I am SUGGESTING it should be of that value. 

 

3) The poorest wont be hit hardest as I've suggested people of means tested benefits, welfare, DLA, PIP etc are exempt - if you read what I said. 

 

End. 

Edited 15 September 2025 by Tommy G

[Zear0]

1 minute ago, Tommy G said:

One more try then I'm done.

 

1) On your first point, this isn't related to private health care - this is a flat one off contribution to see your GP to raise revenue for the NHS. Simple

 

2) ''It will cost far more than that'' I'm not suggesting seeing a Dr will cost the NSH £20, are you talking about the general cost here or saying the policy idea I've just come up with will be more than £20 - because I am SUGGESTING it should be of that value. 

 

3) The poorest wont be hit hardest as I've suggested people of means tested benefits, welfare, DLA, PIP etc are exempt - if you read what I said. 

 

End. 

Nice to see you coming around to the idea of raising taxes on mid to high earners to fund health care 

[leicesterlad1989]

2 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

The whole "Oh we'd all pay a small fee for a GP appointment, wouldn't we?" is the sort of misinformation that makes people think that private healthcare is a good thing.

 

It'll cost far more than that, the demand will still be very high, the quality will not improve and the poorest will be hit the hardest.

I think the point being is that we already pay for dental appointments and we pay for prescriptions, so why would anybody be against paying for an appointment at the doctors if it's going to improve the services. This isn't about making the NHS private. 

Similar with the dentist and prescriptions, certain people would be exempt for payment (such as pregnant women and children, as an example). 

 

I am anti privatisation. I love that we have the NHS. I do have private healthcare through work. But that's not the conversation!

[Richard]

3 minutes ago, Lcfcbl said:

I would argue that charging a nominal fee to see a GP would increase the quality of service because it would cut out the nonsense. I've been guilty of it myself with my kids, best be on the safe side and take them doctors when they have a sniffle. Before I get jumped on, I know you will always have an extreme example where this could be more serious but 99.9% of the time it's a sniffle. Less pointless appointments in the system, the more freedom the doctor has, the better care received.

100%. A nominal fee would stop those that are going 2 or 3 times a week (trust me they exist) rather than actually looking to fund the NHS through charges 

[StanSP]

Just now, leicesterlad1989 said:

I think the point being is that we already pay for dental appointments and we pay for prescriptions, so why would anybody be against paying for an appointment at the doctors if it's going to improve the services. This isn't about making the NHS private. 

Similar with the dentist and prescriptions, certain people would be exempt for payment (such as pregnant women and children, as an example). 

 

I am anti privatisation. I love that we have the NHS. I do have private healthcare through work. But that's not the conversation!

It's another cost to add in though. In terms of a policy, to add it in now when so many in general are suffering from a cost of living crisis would be disastrous. 

[Tommy G]

1 minute ago, Zear0 said:

Nice to see you coming around to the idea of raising taxes on mid to high earners to fund health care 

I think its a fair way to do it rather than lumping another 1 or 2% on tax bands. 

[StanSP]

Just now, Tommy G said:

I think its a fair way to do it rather than lumping another 1 or 2% on tax bands. 

What's the cost difference here? I know you mentioned £4bn earlier. 

 

What money would be brought in if the richest of the rich were taxed more, even at 1-2% extra? 

[Greg2607]

the bit I would be worried about, would be the unintended consequences of this type of policy.....   Would people default to turning up at A&E instead? is there is risk that hospitals would become even more overwhelmed?  Me and my wife often watch "Ambulance" on the BBC and it always horrifies me, the amount of calls the ambulance crews have to attend, that arguably, should be dealt with by tertiary services... unfortunately, though services don't seem to be easily accessible and therefore it falls to emergency crews. 

 

in principle.... to get back to the original point.... would I consider paying to see a GP.... yes... I can afford it... (although i do always try to think about the impact on others rather than just for myself) 

 

arbitrarily, looking at @Tommy G points about looking at generating £4bn for the NHS.... again in principle it looks great.... 

 

if we were doing that purely through people on higher rate tax bands.... it runs to the equivalent of an extra 1% rate on the high rate tax band... (which, if labour did in the october budget... I'm sure would be roundly shouted down) 

 

[Tommy G]

Just now, StanSP said:

What's the cost difference here? I know you mentioned £4bn earlier. 

 

What money would be brought in if the richest of the rich were taxed more, even at 1-2% extra? 

Really depends where you set the threshold. Any tax rises on income should be brought in way about PAYE earners over £250K or more - and if you earn more than that its likely you won't be earning it through PAYE anyway. 

 

Basic, higher rate and additional rate earners are squeezed enough now, I'm talking about the average man on the street £20-£100K earnings here forking out £20 for a Drs appt. 

 

I think a policy like this would be more popular than raising income through income tax, you mention cost of living and how people are struggling, changing tax bands will make this problem worse. 

[AKCJ]

Just now, Tommy G said:

One more try then I'm done.

 

1) On your first point, this isn't related to private health care - this is a flat one off contribution to see your GP to raise revenue for the NHS. Simple

 

2) ''It will cost far more than that'' I'm not suggesting seeing a Dr will cost the NSH £20, are you talking about the general cost here or saying the policy idea I've just come up with will be more than £20 - because I am SUGGESTING it should be of that value. 

 

3) The poorest wont be hit hardest as I've suggested people of means tested benefits, welfare, DLA, PIP etc are exempt - if you read what I said. 

 

End. 

1) What do you think private healthcare is?

 

2) "In my fantasy world I would walk into a steakhouse and have a 3 course meal for a tenner because I think it should cost that!!!"

 

3) Again, what do you think private healthcare is?

[Tommy G]

2 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

the bit I would be worried about, would be the unintended consequences of this type of policy.....   Would people default to turning up at A&E instead? is there is risk that hospitals would become even more overwhelmed?  Me and my wife often watch "Ambulance" on the BBC and it always horrifies me, the amount of calls the ambulance crews have to attend, that arguably, should be dealt with by tertiary services... unfortunately, though services don't seem to be easily accessible and therefore it falls to emergency crews. 

 

in principle.... to get back to the original point.... would I consider paying to see a GP.... yes... I can afford it... (although i do always try to think about the impact on others rather than just for myself) 

 

arbitrarily, looking at @Tommy G points about looking at generating £4bn for the NHS.... again in principle it looks great.... 

 

if we were doing that purely through people on higher rate tax bands.... it runs to the equivalent of an extra 1% rate on the high rate tax band... (which, if labour did in the october budget... I'm sure would be roundly shouted down) 

 

You could argue that someone who is paying tax at 40% is more than contributing enough, and throwing more money at the NHS doesn't fix it, we've seen evidence of this which is why Labour are attempting reform. 

 

Secondly, I think there is an argument that paying will deter people from using it as much as therefore reduce the burden and cost - appreciate your A&E point and it's a valid one. I think taxing people up the wazoo and throwing that extra cash at the NHS won't solve anything. 

[Tommy G]

6 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

1) What do you think private healthcare is?

 

2) "In my fantasy world I would walk into a steakhouse and have a 3 course meal for a tenner because I think it should cost that!!!"

 

3) Again, what do you think private healthcare is?

[RowlattsFox]

I always come out of the dentist unhappy when I have to pay for dental treatment and prescriptions, when millions get it for nothing. Don't make me pay for GP appointments too  

 

 

[CornwallFox]

1 hour ago, Lcfcbl said:

So the fear I had manifests itself within two minutes. I didn't refer to Reforms policy, I asked a simple question of why we, as British people, seem to have an irrational fear of paying to see a doctor when we pay for pretty much every other service we use. 

It was a simple question about our society and culture.

Oh my bad, obviously made a wild assumption there. Fair question in that case. If there was a flat rate of say £10 for everybody except benefit claimants and pensioners, that could raise quite a bit of ££££. It would be electoral suicide though, the papers would wreck labour if they tried that.

[Greg2607]

3 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

You could argue that someone who is paying tax at 40% is more than contributing enough, and throwing more money at the NHS doesn't fix it, we've seen evidence of this which is why Labour are attempting reform. 

 

Secondly, I think there is an argument that paying will deter people from using it as much as therefore reduce the burden and cost - appreciate your A&E point and it's a valid one. I think taxing people up the wazoo and throwing that extra cash at the NHS won't solve anything. 

I don't disagree, I was just giving it an equivalence.... 

[CornwallFox]

4 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

You could argue that someone who is paying tax at 40% is more than contributing enough, and throwing more money at the NHS doesn't fix it, we've seen evidence of this which is why Labour are attempting reform. 

 

Secondly, I think there is an argument that paying will deter people from using it as much as therefore reduce the burden and cost - appreciate your A&E point and it's a valid one. I think taxing people up the wazoo and throwing that extra cash at the NHS won't solve anything. 

Just on the first point about throwing money at the NHS. While the budget has increased over the last 15 years, it has increased far less than demand. Predominantly that's because we have an aging population, which brings with it much more complex healthcare needs. So demand has far outstripped funding. What really needs to happen is a huge increase in public health spending, to try to prevent illness, which I think streeting has talked about, though I haven't seen any detail.

[Dahnsouff]

Its irrelevant, the increase in people and lifespans mean higher costs,  as it is not practical to gain all these increases from higher rate taxation alone, therefore private healthcare will occur one way of the other, and no amount of righteous indignation will shift that needle. This point of use cost is of course another form of regressive taxation unless scaled to wealth/earnings, but you know.....

 

The reason higher taxation is not a real solution is for two reasons

1. damage to political funding, coupled with
2. politicians are utter cowards and won`t look at the long term, only their next term.

 

 

[leicesterlad1989]

16 minutes ago, StanSP said:

It's another cost to add in though. In terms of a policy, to add it in now when so many in general are suffering from a cost of living crisis would be disastrous. 

I agree. Obviously this is hypothetical and there's many things to factor. I was trying to point out the question from the OP.

From a personal perspective, I wouldn't mind paying a flat fee for an appointment but I agree, in general it likely wouldn't work. 

 

Hospitals are already overwhelmed. Particularly A&E. Asking people to pay for a GP appointment would just send those who cannot afford or who refuse to pay to the hospital and just lead to more issues there. The minute you start charging people at A&E, you have pretty much started privatisation of our NHS. 

 

The question/point made and the potential for raising extra funds is a good talking point and I think some have missed the point and turned it political.

[Spudulike]

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

Thank you for replying in a way where we can have a conversation. 

I'm fairness to Labour they came in to an awful position. And they are taking a lot of action - french deal, potential German deal, hugely increased processing and deportations, changing how echr is interpreted to make deportations easier, potentially changing appeals process, talking of not giving visas to countries that don't accept deportations - which I suppose we'll see whether it works or not over the next year or two. 

I'm not convinced about the chaos tbh, I think they haven't solved the problem but it's just continuing from what they got given. It was never going to be solved quickly. 

Tbh I think labour have to solve the problem to stand any chance in the next election, and they know it, so they'll do everything they can. 

I think other parties kinda need the problem to continue as it's the only thing that will get them elected. 

I guess we'll find out over the next period whether anything changes.

 I couldn't vote for Labour at the last election mainly due to what I saw as a dishonest campaign. They promised the economy was safe in their hands, fully costed and budgeted, with no tax rises and an end to the abject failure of the Conservatives. I'm not sure the public were conned in to believing most of their pledges as the electorate just wanted change and to punish the last lot. They could've got elected without the nastiness. 

 

The rehearsed soundbites, £22b black hole, 14 years of the Conservatives etc over and over has turned people off. The new Home Office minister even used the further and faster thing on her first day! Just stop it!

 

The one thing you can say about Reform is they are the only party holding the Governments feet to the fire in such strong terms. Labour need to get a grip and soon.

 

I really, really want Labour to turn this around but I dont have confidence they have the ability or know how to do it.

 

For the first time ever, I didnt vote in the last election as I couldn't endorse any party.

[Lcfcbl]

So if I'm a Reform supporter (currently wouldn't vote for them fwiw) it's not a fair question but if I'm not then it is? This is what I was touching on in my earlier posts, it seems we have to be pigeon-holed left or right but can not just have a honest debate about the simple question in front of us? 

[foxes1988]

12 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

You could argue that someone who is paying tax at 40% is more than contributing enough, and throwing more money at the NHS doesn't fix it, we've seen evidence of this which is why Labour are attempting reform. 

 

Secondly, I think there is an argument that paying will deter people from using it as much as therefore reduce the burden and cost - appreciate your A&E point and it's a valid one. I think taxing people up the wazoo and throwing that extra cash at the NHS won't solve anything. 

NHS should always looking to reform/change for efficiency and adapt especially now we have such an aging population.

 

The can't keep throwing money at it argument doesn't wash with me though. There's never evidence to prove it true.  Our administration costs of NHS is less then other similar size countries let alone full private healthcare countries like the USA which is horribly inefficient.

 

Our problems for the last decade and more is lack of funding.  We should be spending similar levels to France and Germany not substantially less 

 

[Spudulike]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I disagree and I think there is very good reason to suspect that it is they who will get what they want if things continue like this, not the "moderates".

That's only if you see 'moderates' as the far right?

[StanSP]

12 minutes ago, Lcfcbl said:

So if I'm a Reform supporter (currently wouldn't vote for them fwiw) it's not a fair question but if I'm not then it is? This is what I was touching on in my earlier posts, it seems we have to be pigeon-holed left or right but can not just have a honest debate about the simple question in front of us? 

It's been debated as you wished since you asked it, not all posts have mentioned any side of politics... 

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

That's only if you see 'moderates' as the far right?

Not exactly. 

 

As I've said before, I think, with good reason I hope, that if the current path continues those with legitimate concerns that practically anyone wouldn't consider "far right" will be overridden/talked into accepting extreme measures by those who almost certainly are. 

 

It's a well trodden historical narrative - no truly horrific violation of human rights began with such violations, but it ended there, and with a populace too scared, browbeaten or apathetic to speak or act up otherwise.