 | | |
| hifidelity2 wrote: +1 So taking into account of inflation calculatorwe have in todays money the cost of the NHS 1950 = £14.4 Billion 1965 = £18 Billion 1975 = £39.5 Billion 2011 = £110 Billion And dont forget as we have allowed for inflation if the treatmenst had not changed then te costs should have been broadly static 1965 1975 2011 = £110 Billion | |
| | |
Perhaps it's better to show it in terms of GDP%
Healthcare inflation everywhere in the developed world is exceeding growth and has been for decades. In Britain we spend slightly less than countries like France and Germany, much less than America, and have roughly comparable returns. So while it is prudent to take action to slow this growth and get value for money, there is no need to panic.
To switch to a US style system (where we spend double on healthcare as a nation and see practically nothing from it) would be hugely detrimental to our economy. The reason why Americans have never invested in proper state funded healthcare is pure ideological vanity on their part (it wasn't their idea, so it's un-american), no informed or impartial observer could possibly recommend the American system of health care funding over the European. This is why it is absurd to imagine that the Tories want to do any such thing.
Even if they are nothing but thieving mongrels (a disingenuous and unworthy thing to assume of someone who has committed no sin other than disagreeing with some of you people). The US healthcare funding system comes at the expense of every other part of their economy, and amounts to little more than a 5% tax on the entire economy - given that they spend 15% of GDP and could get everything they currently do for 10% of GDP with a 4:1 public / private split if they implemented European health funding. So if they really are all in it just for the directorships, imposing this cost across the board would make them very unpopular in the arms , oil, and energy industries.
