The growing economic is rubbish. Small percentage rises in GDP are more or mess inevitable with a growing population but GDP per capita and productivity are falling meaning we are all getting poorer. When QE starts to unwind for real next year there is potential for a major shock. The mastermind being the Leave campaign and the £350m over week bus now thinks Brexit is a huge mistake!

That's one thing we can agree on, Brexit was stupid, no matter who had won the election it's going to be a dogs dinner!

In my view a guaranteed pay increase every year is reasonable - if 1% is what the system can afford then so be it.

So in your company I take it you give pay rises that the company cannot afford because you don't want your staff to be suffering against inflation?

The insurance is not a perk - if the company didn't pay it they would have to pay me more money that's the private sector for you. I only get a salary increase if certain agreed objectives are met by my team it is not a guarantee.

I said this numerous times on this thread the debate for me is not who gets what but what do we want from our NHS and how can we run it as efficiently as possible?

An example - 2 weeks ago a private company contracted to the NHS stored away a load of notes incorrectly. If these notes had been stored electronically you would have no need to outsource this work and you would save millions. This is just scratching the surface of what could be saved in the NHS. Perhaps if the clinical people were prepared to accept mistakes happen and learn from those mistakes hundreds of millions could be saved in legal fees etc.

Nobody on here seems inclined to debate the elephant in the room - what should the NHS offer?

In Norway one of the much mentioned social friendly countries if you want to see your GP its £200 so that a path we should be taking?

First of all, the staff that employ are paid well over the required minimum but, that's due to the size of the business and the fact that it's very well run and can afford to do so.
I dont have any kind of pay cap but, equally, I dont have an automatic year on year increase.

Most private health schemes tend to be given either as a makeweight for salary or, as a "perk", usually done to give employees "added value in their pay package" and usually, you wouldnt quite get the full difference if you were able to opt out but, everyone is different and maybe you actually would ?
It still doesnt change the fact that private health shouldn't be necessary if the NHS was just a little better, although, you would have to mix with the common man in an NHS hospital and that may not suit you.
Regarding waste within the NHS, of course there is plenty which could and should be improved .
In ANY organisation of that size, there will be areas which could be improved. Perhaps this is one of the reasons they employ so many managers ?
Also, the claims culture is huge within the NHS and some of the spurious claims that are made simply shouldn't be allowed.
Apart from the most serious cases of negligence, it's a pity that this culture can be stopped.
I guess we have America to thank for that.

We still come back to whether it's reasonable to cap increases in local government wages, to below than the level of inflation, indefinitely.

It's fundamentally wrong.

If your employer said that your own salary would reduce (in real terms) for the next 10 years, you would look to move on, I know that I would and this may just have an effect on the numbers wanting to join the medical profession, an area that we can not fill with UK trained staff !!

Why would you want rack up debt and train for several years to go into that profession/environment.

Except I've already tried to - I reluctantly agreed with part of your argument - and provided some counter to how it's not anywhere near as straightforward as you implied.

With regard to the pay of Dr's and nurses; if as you determinedly insist the problems with the NHS are due to inefficiency - is it their fault, and should they be penalised because of it? I'd suggest that there are probably hospital administrators, NHS England grandees and government ministers who should more reasonably carry the can for that, as they're in a better position to affect it. Was Jeremy Hunt's salary capped?

My absolute belief is that the NHS is struggling to cope because it is being systematically defunded, in preparation for a creeping privatisation; it's started already, with the likes of Branson and many companies with links to Tory MP's benefiting - and Mr Hunt quietly selling NHS buildings to private concerns. It won't affect me too much, but it would be a disaster for the majority of people if we end up with a US style system.

Private, insured healthcare in the UK amounts to getting a nicer room / hospital if you have a stay in hospital and getting seen quicker. The care itself is no better and usually worse eg tests not as well controlled, same doctors, even more time pressure to kick you out early. It's about convenience certainly not quality of care.

Yes, I know that and if, heaven forbid, something goes wrong, it's the NHS that pick up the pieces.
It just allows people who want to and who have plenty of brass or, a generous employer, to queue jump.
Some of them then have the audacity to pretend that they are doing the rest of us a favour

I'm not against private medicine necessarily but, if our health service worked just a little better, and was properly funded, nobody would need it.

It's time that health and education were sorted our on a cross party basis and take the politics out of such fundamental services but, sadly, that will never happen and instead we get a continuous political "measuring" contest.

It's time that collectively, we agreed just what should be expected from the NHS and then get on and deal with it.

The primary factor for me is I get to chose the consultant I want to do the 'work'. One I can research and guarantee a high level of competence and quality. In the NHS there are a lot of trainee Drs learning and that's not happening on my knees!

That is the point my wife was in agony with gall stones which the NHS were reluctant to treat - so I suggested I had private medical insurance it was done the following week by the surgeon of our choice in a private hospital.

The surgeon said after the op there was no way my wife should had suffered for as long she had - small price to pay in my view.

Not once on here has anyone suggested what they think the NHS should offer - so let's get everyone's opinion of what should be covered by NI contributions:

For me it should basic healthcare that maintains a reasonable state of being. It should definitely cover childbirth and free health for children up to 16 including dentistry.

What it shouldn't cover: IVF, gender re-assignment, very expensive cancer treatments, vanity treatments e.g. penis increases, breast augmentation, tummy tucks etc.