From the Observer, today, based on analysis by leading experts at the Nuffield Trust:
Labour and the Conservatives would both leave the NHS with lower spending increases than during the years of Tory austerity, according to an independent analysis of their manifestos by a leading health thinktank.
The assessment by the respected Nuffield Trust of the costed NHS policies of both parties, announced in their manifestos last week, says the level of funding increases would leave them struggling to pay existing staff costs, let alone the bill for massive planned increases in doctors, nurses and other staff in the long-term workforce plan agreed last year.
The Nuffield Trust said that “the manifestos imply increases [in annual funding for the NHS] between 2024-25 and 2028-29 of 1.5% each year for the Liberal Democrats, 0.9% for the Conservatives and 1.1% for Labour.
“Both Conservative and Labour proposals would represent a lower level of funding increase than the period of ‘austerity’ between 2010-11 and 2014-15. https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jun/15/labour-and-tories-would-both-leave-nhs-worse-off-than-under-austerity-says-thinktank
Neither the Guardian nor the Nuffield Trust mention Scotland but this matters for us. See:
The devolved governments each receive a block grant for public services from UK-wide taxes. They are free to use it as they see fit: it must cover almost all the cost for their responsibilities, including health. The size of this grant is determined by the Barnett Formula.
The formula ensures that any change in English public spending announced for a devolved area, like the NHS, is reflected by a change in the block grants. For example, if English public spending on health goes up by £100 million, the Welsh block grant will increase by around £6 million because the Welsh population is about 6 per cent of England’s. https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/health-spending-across-the-uk-nations-who-decides-how-much
I know this causes controversy so I’m not saying England determines the spend on NHS Scotland but, I am saying that Labour austerity in England based on assumptions they make about the role of the private health sector will mean a smaller figure upon which the block grant is based and, inevitably, less for NHS Scotland unless the Scottish Government can cut other areas even more.
Talking-up Scotland / Facts on NHS, Crime, ferries and everything else you can think of 
BOTH UNIONIST PARTIES
ARE HELL BENT ON PRIVATE MEDICAL SERVICE
the poor will suffer as they do in America
LikeLiked by 4 people
Not just the poor. The cost of the system in America spreads its tentacles right into what might be the middle or professional classes who are just as liable to end up bankrupted by the system as anyone else.
It means people work on beyond any reasonable retirement age if health insurance is part of their ‘package’.
It means if your employer changes to a new health insurance provider you will likely have to change GP if your current GP is not on the approved list of the new insurer. The same goes for the pharmacy where you get your prescriptions. Even if you have a pharmacy on your doorstep you have to go to the pharmacy mandated by the new insurer even if it involves a hal-hour drive in the car to get there.
it also means your insurer has the final say on your treatment. They tend to prefer tried and tested treatments – less chance of being sued – rather than new treatments that may give quicker recovery times but are seen by the insurer as ‘experimental’.
I could go on but you get the picture. For the absence of doubt the scenarios I have described above have Sall been experienced by my family in the USA.
LikeLiked by 5 people
SPOT ON
the English Tories arranged a secret deal with American medical industry
so NHS will be BLED TO DEATH AND ALL TORIES WILL BE GIFTED BIG SHARE ISSUES IN MED COMPANIES FROM AMERICA
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s also within the medical industry interest for people to be ill, and to even prolong that illness for as long as possible. A friend of mine who’s American father in law was being treated for cancer, who by all accounts it seemed he was being treated with so many medications costing a lot of money, when in fact he was not going to recover and it simply prolonged his terrible pain. Same with veterinary practice, I have two family members whose pets were ‘mis’ diagnosed costing hundreds of £’s. One where a cat had been poisoned, which should have been obvious to any vet but was not diagnosed, sadly it died in agony, meanwhile the vet fee was £700! The other was a dog kept in terrible pain with medication that did not relieve a chronic condition, then when hard times meant using the PSDA, they treated the condition of the dog, and no more pain, it was given the correct meds. So of course why would you cure a person or pet, that could mean a loss of profits. 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘Labour and the Conservatives would both leave the NHS with lower spending increases than during the years of Tory austerity, according to an independent analysis of their manifestos by a leading health thinktank.’
Ah but Labour doesn’t really, really mean it! Voters shouldn’t worry their little heads about what Labour says or what it writes in its manifesto: they should trust Labour to bring about wonderful ‘change’ just because ….!
The latest example of this is documented by the BBC News website: ‘Shadow health secretary Wes Streeting has said he would have wanted Labour’s manifesto plans on social care to be “more ambitious”. Speaking to the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, he said to get a policy into Labour’s manifesto he had to run a “gauntlet” of whether it was deliverable and affordable.’ What a hard life it must be to be part of the Labour leadership team, even for this individual who wishes to reform the NHS by giving much more publicly funded work to the private sector!
‘He suggested there could be more spending on health than outlined in the manifesto in later years – but only if a Labour government was to be voted in and then succeed in its plan for economic growth.’ So jam tomorrow – maybe!
Streeting’s excuse for not investing in social care seems to be the same as Labour’s excuse for NOT doing away with the two-child cap on social security safety net support for families. He is quoted saying: “We don’t want to see the tax burden on working people increase”. What about all those very wealthy people that ‘work’?
(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czdd2858pd8o)
Has he and the soon to be Labour Government’s Chancellor never heard of the potential and merits of introducing much more progressive tax policies, feasible even if there is concern that increasing government spending might be inflationary at this time?
And have they never heard of the beneficial multiplier effect on the economy of increased government spending?
Is Labour (aka LINO) no longer motivated by the urgent needs of health and social care services – and so much more besides – in what the Institute for Government has called the ‘precarious state’ that is the UK nation-state?
Why waste a vote in Scotland on ‘Labour In Name Only’ – why vote LINO in Scotland and contribute to THIS Labour Party having unfettered power over Scotland during the next five?
LikeLiked by 5 people
Life expectancy in the US 76 years
Life expectancy in Spain 84 years
Life expectancy in Japan 85 years
life expectancy in the UK 79. Going down because of austerity. Vote unionist to die younger.
LikeLiked by 3 people