A Surplus - But At What Cost?
So in a “clampdown on spending” the NHS has turned a £547m deficit last year into a £1.8bn surplus this year. But at what cost to the public? Why do they have this money if not to spend it and use it on bettering facilities and patient care? if they don’t need it for that, cut taxes and give it back to the taxpayer!
However, is this surplus good for the NHS? I doubt it. How could it have turned a large deficit one year into an even larger surplus the next year without something happening to the level of service provided? This “clampdown on spending” has probably led to a lack of investment where it is needed and sacking [or just not recruiting] staff wherever possible, no matter the effect on the overall level of care to the patients.
For this financial turnaround in the NHS to have happened to such a large degree is impossible without the lowering of standards. After all, there’s no other way that they could have done this since all their income comes from our pockets!
It may look good on the news for the NHS to have a surplus, but it’s not good for the NHS on the ground.
Source: BBC
This entry is filed under Health, Money, NHS, Taxes. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Since they increased the spending without improving the services there is no logical reason why they should not decrease it without them deteriorating. Is there no such thing as an efficiency in your view of the universe, TD? Having said that, i would be very much surprised if this shower of idiots could have achieved that. This is much more likely to be spin. I would await further analysis from wiser heads like Wat Tyler before leaping to any conclusions.
Tom, it’s precisely because I doubt that the NHS is capable of efficiency that I said it!
It’s immoral to have such a huge deficit when it is running its health services down to such a great extent.