Paramedic - I’m on strike tomorrow

Well it's academic really as the RCN didn't include non-NHS members in the ballot.

You say I'm not dictating what others should do, but I am really. My vote could only make a difference in the (admittedly unlikely) scenario that a) nurses working in the NHS didn't vote for a strike anyway and b) the votes of non-NHS nurses such as myself was sufficient to tip the balance in favour of strike action.

A half-arsed strike to which there wasn't real commitment by frontline staff would be the worst of both worlds.

I think that's why the RCN were right not to give me a vote.

There is a university union (UCU), which I chose to leave as I disagreed with much of what they said and did during covid.
Hi Frozen.
Ever thought of joining Unite?
Much broader than RCN.
 
I have seen quite a lot of people online think that privatising it fully with insurance cover is the way to go. Some people will always fall for the ruse that their taxes will fall if that happens.
A lot of crazy people think they're rich enough to cover their previous, current and future problems, most aren't, not by a long shot.

I doubt if there is anybody in the UK who doesn't get a cost-effective service out of the NHS as I don't think any standard private health insurance covers A&E, pregnancy, birth or previous conditions. The average person on the average wage is paying £750 a year or whatever it is, is getting a great deal to cover all of that.

For some 70-year old to start private cover now, would likely have a few problems which they would need to pay for out of their own pocket (doubt they would get covered by any insurer, unless for an eyewatering amount). Basic health insurance now, for them is ~2k a year, and that's with A&E already paid for by the NHS. Without A&E/ Emergency care covered they would probably be paying 6k a year, and that still not covering previous conditions.

The folk who earn over 200k might not be getting the best deal (but why would they even be bothered?), but all of them will have used it and still use it at some point, and will have done to enable them to live, and if they were not alive they would not be in the position they are in. Also, their wider family will be relying on it too.

If the NHS went private that 20% of tax would probably just still get lost, or still go on healthcare. The US is the only place which comes to mind as not having much of a public health service, yet they still pay way more than any G7 country to it in tax (nearly double), and yet the people still have to have private insurance. The vast majority of the US hate their system, and anyone getting on the wrong side of it wold probably still have their life saved, yet they can go broke instantly because of it, seems crazy and very worrying to me, not sure why anyone would want that.
 
Hi Bobbygee hope today went OK. As a fellow health professional now retired i can fully understand the dilemma you and your colleagues were in, a decision not taken lightly and not something i had to consider in my nearly 40yrs working in the NHS. I 100% support you and other workers in your strike action. I 've been thinking if i was still at work what would i do, mute point but i think i would have voted to strike, however i worked in a emergency area (not A+E) i worked in Cardiology and therefore would be exempt from strike action. Good Luck to you all.
 
Many people with long term mental health and other disabilities cant get health cover because of the high risk factors - and if they do, it costs a small fortune. [Not within the financial reach of most ordinary people]. Private health insurance is a profit-making business.
 
Last edited:
I still view myself as a socialist. I'd gladly pay tax at a higher rate to rejuvenate the welfare state that these a***holes have spent decades trashing. I'd also close up all the loopholes that allow multi millionaires to dodge paying their tax.

It's just that I'm also a pragmatist and a realist. I back the current Labour leader (sometimes holding my nose) just as I backed the last one, because it's the one and only chance the people of this tarnished nation have of replacing these repellent crooks.
Agree with your first paragraph. You already know that I can't agree with the second one, and that's fine. Replacing one turd with another doesn't work for me. I want real change and Starmer won't provide that. It'll just be more of the same with slightly less blatant corruption.
 
Many people with long term mental health and other disabilities cant get health cover because of the high risk factors - and if they do, it costs a small fortune. [Not within the financial reach of most ordinary people]. Private health insurance is a profit-making business.
Just look up the following

Copay
Previous existing condition
X-ray shops ( these exist in the us)
 
Full solidarity with all striking workers. I know from personal experience how hard it is to go on strike, when you may be putting lives at risk and if anybody thinks that is a decision taken lightly, then they are idiots. I'll be visiting as many picket lines as I can over the coming weeks and would encourage everybody to do the same, don't just honk your horns as you drive past. Hasta la victoria siempre.
 
This is what I've been wondering, if the NHS went private would we pay 20% less tax? I highly doubt it.
You're right, the answer is no. The cost of the free healthcare that we would still need to provide (a lot more limited than now, like the US) would go up considerably, due to economies of scale, and then the reduced NHS paying private companies for space/ gear/ consultation that they no longer can afford/ have in stock/available. It wouldn't take the full 20% but probably 10% plus.

Then couple that with the social problems that people not having healthcare would lead to (like how lack of social is F***ing healthcare now), it would jack up social care costs. My bet is that would sap the remaining 10% instantly. Social care is already completely wrecked and needs a pay boost, so that 20% would end up 10% going to reduced NHS and then probably the other 10% being diverted to councils to help with social issues. Tory's wouldn't do this mind (the 10% would get lost to the rich somehow), and things would get way worse, but Labour would, they would have to for the 2025-30 term.

Then obviously couple that with a "more sick" workforce, being less productive, worse for the economy, it would mean we need to fund other areas with tax to make up for that, as they would be raking in less tax from other areas/ profits etc. I think the current workforce is already at record sickness levels, largely as it's older and from the tail of the pandemic, and we can't afford people not getting checked out when they're ill, as they're worried about cost/ insurance etc.

Obv the private system goes on the assumption that everyone can afford private healthcare too, and still paying out the same income tax as now. Can people afford another £200 a month each, after this massive inflation? It's not going to happen, most on <30k or older than 60 (and certainly pensioners) would struggle to be able to afford it. Less people going private, means the cost for those who can goes up, again economies of scale. IF there's no NHS backup then private goes up. There would be no £200 a month insurance if it had to cover what the NHS does. It's like a bad negative feedback loop.

The last thing we need is more people sick/ leaving it ages to get fixed up, and longer waiting lists etc. A healthy workforce is a productive one, and 2% out of a productive 2bn is better than 3% of a non-productive 1bn etc.

What is interesting is that the Tories rely on the older vote, generally people who have accrued money over time, and a lot of them have moved over from Labour (not many are born a tory etc). Effectively they become selfish and want to retain what they have earned, i.e they want payments from others when they're skint (understandable), but when they have money themselves they want to keep it, and not help the worse off (not realistic), they want both sides of the coin. The Tory assumption is that the older votes are easy for them to retain (works better when the NHS does), but an older population is a more sick population, and if there's no NHS then their selfish voters will look at what would serve them best, and that's what will keep them alive. Money is worthless if you're going to get wiped out by insurance costs or die from something you would have normally survived.

It's interesting and I've only just realised that it's labours fighting and help with the NHS, which has given Tory voters an insurance policy to cover the boomers. If we had no NHS it's unlikely the tories would have had power for as long, as they're now going to discover by wrecking it. This could be the big tipping point which moves more older voters to support Labour, as they will know the Tories will not want to keep the majority of them (those not ridiculously rich) alive. Tories have zero interest in really old people with no money, or those whose money will get sapped by care costs, they end up a massive burden and when they get really old they stop voting, or may move back to labour when their cash runs out.
 
Last edited:
You're right, the answer is no. The cost of the free healthcare that we would still need to provide (a lot more limited than now, like the US) would go up considerably, due to economies of scale, and then the reduced NHS paying private companies for space/ gear/ consultation that they no longer can afford/ have in stock/available. It wouldn't take the full 20% but probably 10% plus.

Then couple that with the social problems that people not having healthcare would lead to (like how lack of social is F***ing healthcare now), it would jack up social care costs. My bet is that would sap the remaining 0% instantly. Social care is already completely wrecked and needs a pay boost, so that 20% would end up 10% going to reduced NHS and then probably the other 10% being diverted to councils to help with social issues. Tory's wouldn't do this mind (the 10% would get lost to the rich somehow), and things would get way worse, but Labour would, they would have to for the 2025-30 term.

Then obviously couple that with a "more sick" workforce, being less productive, worse for the economy, it would mean we need to fund other areas with tax to make up for that, as they would be raking in less tax from other areas/ profits etc. I think the current workforce is already at record sickness levels, largely as it's older and from the tail of the pandemic, and we can't afford people not getting checked out when they're ill, as they're worried about cost/ insurance etc.

Obv the private system goes on the assumption that everyone can afford private healthcare too, and still paying out the same income tax as now. Can people afford another £200 a month each, after this massive inflation? It's not going to happen, most on <30k or older than 60 (and certainly pensioners) would struggle to be able to afford it. Less people going private, means the cost for those who can goes up, again economies of scale. It's like a bad negative feedback loop.

The last thing we need is more people sick/ leaving it ages to get fixed up, and longer waiting lists etc. A healthy workforce is a productive one, and 2% out of a productive 2bn is better than 3% of a non-productive 1bn etc.

What is interesting is that the Tories rely on the older vote, generally people who have accrued money over time, and a lot of them have moved over from Labour (not many are born a tory etc). Effectively they become selfish and want to retain what they have earned, i.e they want payments from others when they're skint (understandable), but when they have money themselves they want to keep it, and not help the worse off (not realistic), they want both sides of the coin. The Tory assumption is that the older votes are easy for them to retain (works better when the NHS does), but an older population is a more sick population, and if there's no NHS then their selfish voters will look at what would serve them best, and that's what will keep them alive. Money is worthless if you're going to get wiped out by insurance costs or die from something you would have normally survived.

It's interesting and I've only just realised that it's labours fighting and help with the NHS, which has given Tory voters an insurance policy to cover the boomers. If we had no NHS it's unlikely the tories would have had power for as long, as they're now going to discover by wrecking it. This could be the big tipping point which moves more older voters to support Labour, as they will know the Tories will not want to keep the majority of them (those not ridiculously rich) alive. Tories have zero interest in really old people with no money, or those whose money will get sapped by care costs, they end up a massive burden and when they get really old they stop voting, or may move back to labour when their cash runs out.
This is spot on. The ageing population is going to bite them big style.

The median age in the UK is now around 45, so you're going to have half of the population who have likely worked 20-25+ years and paid taxes towards the NHS.

Try convincing those still working by that age that they need to pay (steadily increasing) insurance costs as well as subsidising those who are exempt from paying.

That's why they drip feed the change in provision. It's like the frog in the saucepan.
 
I'm seeing far more people than I ever expected fronting the cost for private surgeries due to the waiting lists. The elderly I come across regularly say they are happy to pay more for their health care as they feel they can. All remain hardened tories too.

I'm not specifically against reform, or even an insurance based system similar to mainland Europe. I wouldn't trust the current government to implement anything even close though.

I think it crazy that the more I listen to Conservative view points that they want less state regulation and control, but want the state to oversee and be responsible still. To coin a message on here previously, Capitalise profits, socialise risk.
 
This is spot on. The ageing population is going to bite them big style.

The median age in the UK is now around 45, so you're going to have half of the population who have likely worked 20-25+ years and paid taxes towards the NHS.

Try convincing those still working by that age that they need to pay (steadily increasing) insurance costs as well as subsidising those who are exempt from paying.

That's why they drip feed the change in provision. It's like the frog in the saucepan.
Yeah, it's mad isn't it, it's been staring me in the face all this time, and I never really noticed it.

Tories rely on older voters (more and more), older voters rely on NHS (even more so after covid with waiting lists and long covid) etc.

But they're going to get nailed from many directions:
-People less old have moved back to Labour (inflation, house prices, crap conditions, brexit etc)
-They're going to kill the older voters with no or a poorly functioning NHS
-They're going to skint people with no or a poorly functioning NHS (loads will feel like they have to add on private care as a backup, I'm going to do this until Labour get in and sort it out)
-The younger folk work in the NHS or know people who do
-They killed older folk with crap covid controls and sending covid infected to care homes
-They've invigorated the young into voting against them, as they've wrecked their future

One of the only ways the Tories could free up more cash is to take from pensions, but if they do that it will **** off more old people, and if they extend the pension age or don't take money from rich pensioners (but take more from others) then the rest will get ***ed off.

Who are they actually planning on winning votes from? If they were not so ****, I'd say this looks like an inside job (which they have done great at). I would laugh, if things were not so **** for many.

Yeah, people paying for NHS for 20-40 years until they're 40-60, to find that it doesn't work when they hit 60 won't go down well, and they can't afford the costs of private to treat their pre-existing conditions of dodgy knees and hips, never mind anything else.
 
I'm seeing far more people than I ever expected fronting the cost for private surgeries due to the waiting lists. The elderly I come across regularly say they are happy to pay more for their health care as they feel they can. All remain hardened tories too.
Yeah, I thought that would happen, I suppose it has to when things are that bad. I suppose the waiting lists would be even worse if those who could afford it, didn't do it.

Let's see if the elderly are happy when their £200 a month policy becomes £500 a month (just like their energy bill has), doesn't cover any pre-existing conditions, has a £500 excess and their savings/pension gets wiped by inflation, energy prices and crap market conditions. They will come crawling back in no time.

It's going to take a long time to fix the NHS/ Social aspects, at the same time as everything else being broken. I just hope people give Labour more than one term at it, as it's probably going to take a decade or two, to get to the level of care/ life we should expect.
 
Back
Top