JAMES Young suggests several individual sources of funding for the NHS, only to knock them down as straw man arguments: a more nuanced approach, a little from each source, might be more productive.

However, I don’t accept it’s my responsibility to solve in detail this particular problem. We have elected a government that was anxious to persuade us that the NHS “is safe in our hands”. I would merely like to hold them to their undertaking.

To this end, I have made a number of points that are generally accepted: international studies of similar countries routinely commend the NHS with its faults, real or imagined, as providing one of the most effective and cost-effective models for health care. Similar countries spend a significantly higher proportion of national income than we do on health. They provide a lot more doctors and nurses in relation to the population than we do. In relative terms we are a moderately taxed country.

If we do not adequately fund the NHS, the penalty will be unnecessary sickness, a less fit and active life for many, and increased rates of untimely death. Aside from the economic cost, that list entails considerable human suffering. Avoiding it where possible seems to me to be a moral imperative. I am surprised that this belief is considered enough to apply to me the label of “socialist”. I have always thought of it as common decency and basic humanity.

Barry Tempest

Romulus Close

Dorchester