Margaret Thatcher’s sometime chancellor Nigel Lawson famously remarked that the NHS is “the closest thing the English people have to a religion”.
Certainly, as the UK census records a decline in adherence to Christianity, celebrating and bemoaning the state of “our NHS” brings together citizens of all creeds and political persuasions.
Everyone fears pain and sickness. The aspiration of those who set up the NHS was to divorce those real concerns from worries about money and being able to pay for care.
The NHS was to be paid for through taxation, making all treatment “free at the point of delivery”.
For many people, the idea that health care should not be paid for by the individual has become an article of faith.
This week, the inference that he’d gone against this rule provided an effective line of attack against the prime minister, who also happens to be a multimillionaire.
After days of challenge from the media and political opponents, Rishi Sunak finally confessed at PMQs that he had “used independent health care in the past”, while protesting “I am registered with a NHS GP”.
If you are an NHS worker and would like to share your experiences with us anonymously, please email NHSstories@sky.uk
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:15
‘I have used independent health care in past’
What does ‘free’ really mean?
Advertisement
In reality, the divide between “free”, taxpayer-funded health care, and good, private medicine is nowhere near as clear-cut as Mr Sunak‘s awkward moments would suggest.
The majority of NHS users actually make some sort of personal “co-payment” for services, every time they pick up a prescription.
According to the Office of National Statistics, at least 13% of adults paid for private medical care in the last year.
And just to keep up with present inadequate levels of treatment, the NHS itself is heavily reliant on contracting workers and services from the private sector.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:02
‘I couldn’t believe what I was seeing’
When the NHS was established in 1948, the official leaflet sent out to all households spelt out its core principles.
“Everyone – rich or poor, man, woman or child – can use it or any part of it,” it said.
“There are no charges, except for a few items. There are no insurance qualifications. But it is not a ‘charity’. You are all paying for it, mainly as taxpayers, and it will relieve your money worries in time of illness.”
From the start, that sidebar phrase “except for a few items” gave away that not everything would be absolutely free.
Some services would require some payments by some patients.
Nye Bevan, the minister who launched the NHS, resigned from the Labour government when charges were introduced for “teeth and specs” – dental treatment, dentures, glasses and surgical appliances.
A few years later, a Conservative government introduced prescription charges. All these still apply today, even as the cost of health care for the nation has multiplied 10 times over.
The NHS budget in 1948 was £437m – the equivalent of some £16bn in today’s money.
The NHS budget for 2023-24 has been set at £160.4bn, subject to any subsequent emergency funding to deal with strikes and the “health care crisis”.
Image: Health Secretary Aneurin Bevan launched the NHS in 1948
From GPs to social care, NHS setup is full of anomalies
There are further anomalies in the way the NHS is set up: family doctors are supposed to be the gateway to treatment in the NHS – but GPs stayed out of the system. Their practices are self-employed small businesses, while in hospitals; doctors, nurses, and technicians are employed by the NHS.
Technically, taxpayers don’t pay directly to the NHS, but contribute to the budget for “health and social care services”.
But social care – looking after people who need it at home or in care homes – was excluded from the “free” principle and consequently underfunded.
With a growing proportion of elderly people in the population, the absence of properly funded care has resulted in alleged “bed blocking” at hospitals and inadequate pay for care workers compared to those doing a similar job in the health service.
Attempts by various governments to find ways for families to contribute more to the cost of care backfired. In 2017, Theresa May’s care proposals were quickly dubbed the “dementia tax”. An earlier plan from Labour was branded the “death tax” by Tory finance spokesman George Osborne.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:46
‘Nothing has changed!’
In the meantime, more than seven million people are on waiting lists for NHS treatment.
Waiting times are mounting in A&E departments and for ambulances delivering patients to hospitals. Britain’s “excess deaths” are running significantly above the average.
Once again, the relationship between the NHS and private health care is being seen as a solution by some and a problem by others.
Some NHS hospital trusts are buying operations for their patients in private hospitals – or even in French hospitals.
On the other hand, some trusts are telling those on waiting lists that they can get their operations quickly if they go private – often using facilities in the same hospital, with the same NHS staff moonlighting.
Statistics suggest that overall delivery by NHS services was best during the early years of this century, after Tony Blair and Gordon Brown raised funding for the NHS to the European average for health care spending per capita.
Since then, the UK has dropped behind again.
Using OECD data, the King’s Fund reported that compared to most of the rest of the Western world, the UK has one of the lowest numbers of doctors, nurses, and hospital beds for the size of its population.
Argument continues over whether it is lack of funding or inefficient bureaucratic organisation which is responsible for the NHS crisis.
The public’s belief that health care should be “free” is not making a solution any easier. Opinion polls show public sympathy for the pay claims of nurses, doctors, and paramedics and for paying more for the NHS.
But this generous spirit does not extend very far in practice.
In a detailed survey by Redford and Wilton Strategies, asking “how much more in tax would the British public be prepared to pay to provide more funding to the NHS”, 43% said they would pay nothing more, and 24% set the maximum extra at £100. Only 11% said they would pay upwards of £500.
Labour says the extensive “NHS Plan” outlined by Sir Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting would be paid by ending non-dom status and without troubling most UK taxpayers.
This is highly ambitious since Labour proposes ending staff shortages by doubling the number of medical school places and of district nurses; 10,000 extra nurses and midwives each year and 5,000 more health visitors.
Nor is it clear how these long-term supply side measures would “end the Tory crisis”, as Sir Keir claims.
In its 75-year history, the NHS has been managed by both Labour and Conservative governments, and they have confronted the same challenges.
True, in most years since the 2008 banking crisis the NHS has been funded at below the average 4% annual increase it had come to expect since the 1950s.
But in that time, funding levels were never a major point of difference between the parties.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:37
Health check for the NHS
Behind the rhetoric, the latest attempts to sort out the NHS are cross-party.
The government has appointed Patricia Hewitt, a former Labour health secretary, to conduct a review of the new integrated care boards. Both parties are developing long-term training programmes to end staffing shortages.
But the “free” NHS is so popular that politicians shy away from questioning its core principles and organisation, even though health care needs and available treatments are vastly different from those in 1948.
Voters want more and more without having to pay more for it. Rather than confront patients or health professionals with this dilemma, it’s easier to polish old grievances and indulge in a shouting match about those, including Mr Sunak, who can pay for health care bypassing the NHS which others cannot afford.
Syria has carried out pre-emptive operations targeting Islamic State cells – arresting 71 people during 61 raids.
Explosives and weapons were seized, with the interior ministry revealing they were working on “precise” intelligence information.
“Many” of those detained were wanted criminals, with forces obtaining evidence that linked them to terrorist activities.
A statement added that the operation was part of “ongoing national efforts to combat terrorism and confront plots targeting the country’s security and citizens”.
The raids come as Syrian President Ahmed al Sharaa travels to Washington for a meeting with Donald Trump, where he will join a coalition against IS.
Meanwhile, the US is preparing to establish a military presence in Damascus to enable a security pact that is being brokered between Syria and Israel.
According to the Syrian Arab News Agency, officials intercepted information that suggested Islamic State was planning to launch new attacks.
More on Islamic State
Related Topics:
Interior ministry spokesman Nour al Din al Baba told al Ekhbariya: “The current major threat lies in IS’ attempts to reconstitute itself and recruit new members, particularly among the youth.”
Since then, al Sharaa’s transitional administration has been attempting to restore security, introduce economic reforms, and cooperate with international partners.
On Friday, the UK and US removed sanctions against al Sharaa – following in the footsteps of the UN Security Council.
The State Department said this was “in recognition of the progress demonstrated by the Syrian leadership”, including work to counter narcotics and eliminate chemical weapons.
Al Sharaa had faced a travel ban, asset freeze and an arms embargo for well over a decade because he was previously affiliated with al Qaeda.
Israeli troops in Gaza have received the remains of another hostage.
They have now been taken to the National Institute for Forensic Medicine to be examined.
If it is confirmed that they belong to a hostage, this would mean there are five bodies left to be returned under the terms of a ceasefire that began on 10 October.
Israel has also released the bodies of 285 Palestinians – but this identification process is harder because DNA labs are not allowed in Gaza.
Last night’s transfer is a sign of progress in the fragile truce, but some of the remains handed over in recent weeks have not belonged to any of the missing hostages.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:31
October: Heavy machinery enters Gaza to clear rubble
At times, Israel has accused Hamas of violating the agreement – however, US President Donald Trump has previously acknowledged conditions on the ground in Gaza are difficult.
Meanwhile, UN officials have warned the levels of humanitarian aid flowing into the territory fall well short of what Palestinians require.
Deputy spokesperson Farhan Haqq said more than 200,000 metric tons of aid is positioned to move in – but only 37,000 tons has arrived so far.
Earlier on Friday, hundreds of mourners attended the military funeral of an Israeli-American soldier whose body was returned on Sunday.
Image: Omer Neutra was an Israeli-American soldier. Pic: AP
Captain Omer Neutra was 21 when he was killed by Hamas militants who then took his body into Gaza following the October 7th attacks.
Admiral Brad Cooper, who heads up US Central Command, said during the service: “He is the son of two nations.
“He embodied the best of both the United States and Israel. Uniquely, he has firmly cemented his place in history as the hero of two countries.”
His mother Orna addressed her son’s coffin – and said: “We are all left with the vast space between who you were to us and to the world in your life and what you were yet to become. And with the mission to fill that gap with the light and goodness that you are.”
Image: IDF troops carry the coffin of hostage Omer Neutra. Pic: AP
In other developments, Turkish prosecutors have issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and 36 other Israeli officials on charges of carrying out “genocide” in Gaza.
They have been accused of crimes against humanity – but the move is highly symbolic since these officials were unlikely to enter Turkey.
Foreign minister Gideon Saar dismissed the warrants, and said: “Israel firmly rejects, with contempt, the latest PR stunt by the tyrant Erdogan.”
In Soviet times, Western observers would scrutinise video footage of state occasions, like military parades on Red Square, to try to learn more about Kremlin hierarchy.
Who was positioned closest to the leader? What did the body language say? Which officials were in and out of favour?
In some ways, not much has changed.
The footage present-day Kremlinologists are currently pouring over is from Wednesday’s landmark meeting of Russia’s Security Council, in which Vladimir Putin told his top officials to start drafting proposals for a possible nuclear weapons test.
It was an important moment. Not one you’d expect a trusted lieutenant to miss. But Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s veteran foreign minister, was conspicuously absent – the only permanent member of the Council not present.
According to the Russian business daily, Kommersant, his absence was “coordinated”.
More on Russia
Related Topics:
Image: US President Donald Trump meets with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Pic: AP
Image: Sergey Lavrov and Marco Rubio in Alaska. Pic: AP
That episode alone would have been enough to raise eyebrows.
But coupled with the selection of a more junior official to lead the Russian delegation at the upcoming G20 summit (a role Lavrov has filled in recent years) – well, that’s when questions get asked, namely: Has Moscow’s top diplomat been sidelined?
The question has grown loud enough to force the Kremlin into a denial, but it’s done little to quell speculation that Lavrov has fallen out of favour.
Image: Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov. File pic: Reuters
Rumours of a rift have been mounting since Donald Trump called off a planned summit with Putin in Budapest last month, following a phone call between Lavrov and US secretary of state Marco Rubio.
According to the Financial Times, it was Lavrov’s uncompromising stance that prompted the White House to put the summit on ice.
Conversations I had with diplomatic sources here at the time revealed a belief that Lavrov had either dropped the ball or gone off-script. Whether it was by accident or by design, his diplomacy (or lack of it) torpedoed the summit and seemingly set back a US-Russia rapprochement.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:19
September: Anyone downing aircraft in Russian airspace will ‘regret it’
That would’ve angered Putin, who is keen to engage with Washington, not only on Ukraine but on other issues, like nuclear arms control.
More importantly, perhaps, it made the Russian president appear weak – unable to control his foreign minister. And Putin is not a man who likes to be undermined.
Football fans will be familiar with Sir Alex Ferguson’s golden rule of management: Never let a player grow bigger than the club. Putin operates in a similar fashion. Loyalty is valued extremely highly.
Image: Lavrov meets with his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif in 2015. Pic: Reuters
Image: North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and Lavrov meet in Pyongyang in 2023. Pic: AP
Image: Lavrov and Chinese counterpart Wang Yi meet in Indonesia in 2022. Pic: Reuters
If Lavrov has indeed been sidelined, it would be a very significant moment indeed. The 75-year-old has been the face of Russian diplomacy for more than two decades and effectively Putin’s right-hand man for most of the Kremlin leader’s rule.
Known for his abrasive style and acerbic putdowns, Lavrov has also been a vociferous cheerleader for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
And in the melee that immediately followed the presidents’ press statements at the summit, I remember racing over to Lavrov as he was leaving and yelling a question to him through the line of security guards.
He didn’t even turn. Instead, he just shouted back: “Who are you?”
It was typical of a diplomatic heavyweight, who’s known for not pulling his punches. But has that uncompromising approach finally taken its toll?