I'm no economist but it seems obvious that we (the UK, and most developed countries in the world) can't continue to spend more than we earn.

This will inevitably affect people's lives either through higher taxation, reduced services, or other similar budgetary adjustments. It amazes me how much mileage the media gets out of this simple fact - of course the NHS will change as a result of all of this.

From my simple perspective, to avoid continued decline in public services, someone is going to have t live with reduced quality of personal life (i.e., more of "someone's" money will have to be taken in taxes). Whether this is the poor having to eat bread and water, the middle class having to take fewer holidays or the rich having to cut down from three Porsches to two is the main question.

Other than voting for whoever we think will increase the taxation of the right people, I don't see there is much I can do to change any of this so I increasingly stop wasting my mental over it. Other than typing this post of course.

USS have just announced they will be paying out less. Possibly you've squeaked in with that?

The wringing of hands on all this is pointless, they are always going to tax the easy targets - people with a decent PAYE income and no scams going on

I like Britain and the way it's done on the whole, it seems equitable compared to the US and you can generally get on with life without worrying about healthcare bills, losing your job on the spot and/or getting your head blown off.

Yes, I am following the USS debate with interest. I think in general, changes won't affect existing "investments", which will be a computer nightmare when they have to calculate pension forecasts. I had all my plans carefully laid out for a 2018 early/phased retirement and a modest standard of living so I am that any changes won't have major effects on those plans.

I agree with you, but in terms of retirement, the UK public needs to engage in a major mental step change. Most of the people I speak with have absolutely no clue about investing for retirement. But as you say, the safety net is more equitable here especially in terms of coping financially with major life events.

I think that is the crux of the matter, this country generally speaking is a very good place to live, not perfect but better than most and worse than very few. There will always be those who revel in scouring the media looking for bad news stories but the good news stories far outweigh the bad.

To be brutally honest, the UK public has been spoon fed for too long. People don't understand how the pension system works, and think the 5/- 'stamp' they paid in their youth was put in a magic vault and is now ample to pay for their current income and healthcare.

USS appear to have blown a huge fortune in unwise investments, how they are going to square all that is something my husband and I were puzzling about yesterday. Eg, seems like they will have to use a person's final salary at some point in the calculation. Maybe you should bring retirement forward!

That was something I was wondering about (can I beat the changes by retiring even earlier?) Unfortunately, 2018 is really the absolute earliest I could go, and have at least a comfortable (very "modest") standard of living. I'd be living largely off draw-down savings until partial state pension, TIAA-CREF and a very small US SS income kick in 5 years later.

I get a little hot under the collar when retired UK academics I know mump and moan about how their bank balance won't stop going up and they can't find enough ways to spend it. Grrrr ... at least don't complain about it, FFS!

I explained the "20 rule" to a friend recently (whatever income you want in retirement from investments, you'll need to have 20 times that much saved up). Even that rule is becoming obsolete. In short, they were astounded, which in turn I found astounding.

I keep meaning to send you a PM as I am curious about your hubby's thoughts and experiences regarding a couple of things. Will get round to it some time.

Depends what formula they use, but I imagined you would be close enough to retirement to have protection.

Yes people who have already retired seem OK.

Feel free to PM.

Ah!, pensions and the NHS, both in line for serious reform, both in the news this morning.

Retirement age to rise by as much as six months per year - Telegraph

The NHS must learn to be smarter - Telegraph

......... the times they are a changing.

Not gone to the dogs though, just not the pedigree it used to be.

Before people panic, it's worth noting that the article headed "retirement age to increase by six months per year" is NOT about increasing state pension age, but a suggestion that people hold off on retiring, so they have more money invested and a more comfortable retirement (financially).

The 'pedigree' has got much better with new treatments for many conditions. It all costs though.

Means testing makes some sense, and might have extra effectiveness by tipping some patients toward paying for their whole procedure privately. The question and the risk is where to set the qualifying means. Well above median income I think.

Continuing the Independents' series on the NHS. An interview with Sir Bruce Keogh.

A much more positive and enlightened view IMHO. Sustainable?

Free NHS vital in era of genetic medicine, says England’s top doctor - Health News - Health & Families - The Independent

The graph of areas that predict a deficit in funding is a bit depressing though.

You are a trier Bud...i'll give you that

BBC News - NHS Devon surgery restriction for smokers and obese plan revealed

I'm all for educating people to live a healthier lifestyle, but denial of treatment seems a step too far. Yes? No?

What's next? Compulsory insurance for sporting activities? Payment for medical services rendered to the alcohol or drug intoxicated?

As with many of these political hot potatoes, it's the extremes that get people all agitated, and as with many of these political hot potatoes, somewhere in between the extremes is the way to go. It's just difficult to figure out how to implement the middle ground so politicians etc. go for the "easy to regulate" option. Cut-off points for body fatness and smoking are easily monitored.

As for charging drunks for A&E care, I am at the extreme end on that one - breathalyse them and charge them.