NHS not fit for the 21st century
The NHS is stuck in the past and not fit for the 21st century, according to the new chief inspector of English hospitals.Prof Ted Baker said that the NHS missed its opportunity to modernise and invest in community services under the last Labour government.

NHS nurses are too busy to care for patients properly, research shows
In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, he said: “One of the things I regret is that 15 or 20 years ago, when we could see the change in the population, the NHS did not change its model of care.
“It should have done it then – there was a lot more money coming in but we didn’t spend it all on the right things. We didn’t spend it on transformation of the model of care.” Click to expand... Funny thing is that some of us have been saying this for years. The whole edifice is just too resistant to change and coupled with the religious ferver of its supporters means we are stuck with a second class system.
NHS not fit for the 21st century, says chief inspector of hospitals Well, he is of course just stating the bleedin' obvious, and as you say, many of us have been saying this for many years. When he says that they didn't spend the money on the right things, what he meant was that it was spent on staff salaries. Which funnily enough, does naff all to improve patient care.
It is a total sacred cow religion for many people, especially those on the left of course, who thinks the sun shines out of its a***. It's the ultimate in socialist doctrine, a massive state controlled monopoly, wholly funded by the tax payer . Where the pauper gets the same treatment as the prince.
Except he doesn't of course, because the prince wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.
It never has "enough" money, because it's an insatiable bottomless pit - whatever sum of money you give it, it will spend and ask for more. So every year it sticks the begging bowl out, and every year it gets patched up, and limps on.
One day it will collapse and fall flat on it's a***, and only then will anyone even start considering serious reform. Hmmm, can't argue with that Well some people will. I'm guessing your NHS vasectomy didn't go well then?
Seriously though, is there anything wrong with a pauper getting the same treatment as a prince (not that he uses it, as you allude to). Private. For the privates  This is how I see it.
The population has increased to 65 million (according to the last census) and it is widely accepted that it is probably a good deal higher than this.
Net migration adds another 200 thousand every year.
There are about 23 million in full time employment.
Which means that there are at least 42 million not in full time employment, most of whom will be on low income or nothing.
You don't start paying NI until your income is over £8000, so a large proportion of that 42 million are paying very little or nothing towards the NHS.
So back to 23 million in full time employment.
The average full time salary is £27k.This is a median which means that 11.5 million people are earning less than £27k.
If you are on the highest minimum wage in full time empliyment (40 hours per week) then you pay £900 per year.
So 11.5 million are paying between £900 and £2300 into the NHS per year.
If for simplicity sake we say they are all paying the full £2,300 and we say that 42 million not in full time emplyment are paying nothing then this means that 42 million are contributing an average of £500 per year each.
And remember that is £500 NI, that doesn't all go to the NHS, it has to cover things lije police, fire brigade etc.
Private Health policies are around £600 per person.These only cover complications - no GP, no accident and emergancy, no maternity etc).They also have excess payments, do not treat existing conditions, often have a no claims system that increases your payments after a claim.
Now accepted that they have to make a profit, which the NHS does not but because of this they generally get their maths right.
So if the private sector is saying that they need £600 per year per person to effectively provide a service with a lot less scope than the NHS then it makes sense to me that the NHS require a similar amount.
And the fact is 53.5 million (82% of the population) are paying less than that.
Of course there is the 11.5 million earning above £27k who are contributing more.And there are other sources like company NI but it is too small a proportion to cover the deficit and the government has to prop it up with income tax.
The stark reality, is that the people aren't contributing enough to pay for the NHS and keep trying to squeeze the top 5% who earn over the main NI threshold isn't enough, but to ask the whole population to cough up more doesn't look good in manifestos.
And the secondary problem, as mentioned above, is that as soon as the government tries to do something (like introducing/increasing upper NI contributions) the unions pounce and it all gets sucked up as wage increases.Not saying that some aren't deserving but that isn't fixing the problem.
Cheers,
Nigel 100%. Simple matter of far more consumers than contributors. Which is why charges need to be introduced to stop so many getting a free ride. He is talking about NHS England and older people basically bed blocking, not so much of problem in NHS Wales where it' has been moving into care at home and community for much longer, hence free prescriptions, preventions better than cures, small community rehab and observations hospitals poping up everywhere.
Good that the debate is catching on in other parts of kingdom but not sure why the private sector has to be further involved in NHS England, not going well as it is. That must be why waiting lists are longer in Wales then, and cancer outcomes poorer.