There seems to be widespread concern about the collapse of the National Health Service around here (Banbury). It is important that the country should know the Labour party line on the NHS? I trust the Labour Party has done its research and got the answers?
So, should there be more Government money spent, to match the fraction of GDP spent (per head) by Germany and France?
What should we say if the Government retorts that they are spending more now than ever before? That it is still not enough? That the population has risen? That our spend is a lower fraction of GDP than in comparable first-world countries? Can we defend our figures?
What do we say if the Tories say that Tony Blair started the sell-off and Private-Public-Partnership concept? That we now regard that as a mistake?
Do we subscribe to the idea that we must squeeze out inefficiency and waste? Or do we point to the global efficiency of our NHS compared with USA or Germany? Is our NHS more efficient or less efficient than USA or Germany/France? On what metric. Can we defend these figures in Parliament.
Do we think there is Mission Creep in the NHS, with an ever- increasing list of treatments, procedures and medicines?
Do we think there is Mission Creep in the NHS, with an ever- increasing list of treatments, procedures and medicines?
Would Labour advocate 1p/£ increase in income tax specifically to fund the increased demands on geriatric care, rather than see closures and sell-offs? Say, 20% 'basic rate' rising to 21%; as advocated here some 4 years ago.
(Trying to help! ) Best wishes, Cawstein
