This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/23/nhs-religion-funding-mutual

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The NHS is our national religion – but there’s no miracle funding cure The NHS is our national religion – but there’s no miracle funding cure
(6 months later)
The NHS is the one postwar act to which the public are committed. It has become, in Nigel Lawson’s indicative phrase, Britain’s national religion. That is why politicians invariably play safe, knowing that the gods can most easily be assuaged with offerings of money. Yet the gods are getting more and more demanding and we live in an age of public austerity.The NHS is the one postwar act to which the public are committed. It has become, in Nigel Lawson’s indicative phrase, Britain’s national religion. That is why politicians invariably play safe, knowing that the gods can most easily be assuaged with offerings of money. Yet the gods are getting more and more demanding and we live in an age of public austerity.
It must be doubted if the government believes its own rhetoric on safeguarding the NHS budget in real terms. NHS inflation is higher than the government calculates, the older we get as a nation the greater our health demands, and modern technology feeds that demand. So is the solution simply more money? The answer is an emphatic “yes”, but in assuaging the gods we need to change fundamentally the politics of health.It must be doubted if the government believes its own rhetoric on safeguarding the NHS budget in real terms. NHS inflation is higher than the government calculates, the older we get as a nation the greater our health demands, and modern technology feeds that demand. So is the solution simply more money? The answer is an emphatic “yes”, but in assuaging the gods we need to change fundamentally the politics of health.
Related: NHS could be saved by increasing national insurance, Labour MP says
Here is where the public’s view of national insurance contributions could come to the rescue. The public do not regard an increase in NI contributions as a tax increase. A few of us pushed under New Labour for a broader funding of health and welfare by making NI contributions progressive and shifting these costs onto this new revenue base. Paying in before drawing out is the bedrock of what voters see as fair.Here is where the public’s view of national insurance contributions could come to the rescue. The public do not regard an increase in NI contributions as a tax increase. A few of us pushed under New Labour for a broader funding of health and welfare by making NI contributions progressive and shifting these costs onto this new revenue base. Paying in before drawing out is the bedrock of what voters see as fair.
The financial catastrophe into which the NHS is beginning to tumble (already a record number of hospitals have tipped over to emergency loans from government) will slowly begin to shut down parts of the NHS as we know it. Maybe at that point, or before – if it wants to look smart – the government will open up discussions on a new funding basis for health and extend that to social care. It might even get away with the current NI contributory base, but peace at this price won’t last long.The financial catastrophe into which the NHS is beginning to tumble (already a record number of hospitals have tipped over to emergency loans from government) will slowly begin to shut down parts of the NHS as we know it. Maybe at that point, or before – if it wants to look smart – the government will open up discussions on a new funding basis for health and extend that to social care. It might even get away with the current NI contributory base, but peace at this price won’t last long.
Now is the opportunity for an Aneurin Bevan-type reform of NHS finances. Last year, I proposed the creation of a new NHS mutual organisation that debates with us, (the potential contributors), and the government, a rolling financial budget for the NHS.Now is the opportunity for an Aneurin Bevan-type reform of NHS finances. Last year, I proposed the creation of a new NHS mutual organisation that debates with us, (the potential contributors), and the government, a rolling financial budget for the NHS.
The election came and went, with none of the main parties pledging anywhere near enough extra cash to meet the projected shortfall in the NHS budget. Hence why it now finds itself having to find an additional £22bn of savings by the end of the parliament. If these savings are to be achieved, voters are likely to have experienced a marked deterioration in their standards of care. The need for reform, as well as a buoyant new source of revenue, has therefore become doubly urgent.The election came and went, with none of the main parties pledging anywhere near enough extra cash to meet the projected shortfall in the NHS budget. Hence why it now finds itself having to find an additional £22bn of savings by the end of the parliament. If these savings are to be achieved, voters are likely to have experienced a marked deterioration in their standards of care. The need for reform, as well as a buoyant new source of revenue, has therefore become doubly urgent.
Related: NHS providing poorer care as funding crisis deepens, says survey
Voters have made it clear that they are willing to make an additional financial contribution to the NHS. In 2002, when Gordon Brown put a penny increase on NI contributions the public cheered him. They may have been less enthusiastic had they known that a little under half the money thereby raised was siphoned off to other New Labour pet projects. Perhaps with this in mind, their willingness this time round to make an additional contribution is contingent on any new monies being used to drive an ongoing programme of reform that delivers a 21st century health and social care service.  Voters have made it clear that they are willing to make an additional financial contribution to the NHS. In 2002, when Gordon Brown put a penny increase on NI contributions the public cheered him. They may have been less enthusiastic had they known that a little under half the money thereby raised was siphoned off to other New Labour pet projects. Perhaps with this in mind, their willingness this time round to make an additional contribution is contingent on any new monies being used to drive an ongoing programme of reform that delivers a 21st century health and social care service.  
Voters will not entertain the prospect of writing politicians a blank cheque to prop up a failing health service. Nor will they tolerate ever greater sums being transferred from other budgets as a quick fix to try and prevent the black hole in the health budget from growing. Having a mutual body that ringfences NI contributions for health and social care, and also presents us with what a modern health service costs, could see the NHS through the next 20 years. Agreement lasting four parliaments would be no mean achievement.Voters will not entertain the prospect of writing politicians a blank cheque to prop up a failing health service. Nor will they tolerate ever greater sums being transferred from other budgets as a quick fix to try and prevent the black hole in the health budget from growing. Having a mutual body that ringfences NI contributions for health and social care, and also presents us with what a modern health service costs, could see the NHS through the next 20 years. Agreement lasting four parliaments would be no mean achievement.