A more responsible plan for funding the NHS

SIR – It is good news that the British Medical Association is to vote on whether there should be alternative ways of funding the NHS (report, June 23). Sensible discussion is long overdue.

The general public expends huge sums on drink, drugs, smoking, gambling, tattoos, piercings, cosmetic treatment, hazardous activities and unwise diets. Why then should those who have so recklessly spent their money, and who subsequently seek treatment for self-inflicted physical or mental harm, not be expected to pay something towards the cost?

Of course, those who could not afford even a token amount must not be denied help, but for the majority of patients some contribution would not be unreasonable. John Capel

Reading , Berkshire SIR – There are about seven million people in Britain who are already saving the NHS. They are unpaid family carers. Barbara Cooke

Ipswich, Suffolk

SIR – It is disingenuous to say that other countries spend more on their health services than we do in Britain.

Few, if any, have a service that is entirely free at the point of delivery. In Sweden, 85 per cent of healthcare expenditure is taxpayer-funded, while in France, it is 80 per cent. The rest is composed of an insurance element.

If we go on at the current rate, raising taxes to pay for an unreformed 70-year-old service that faces ever increasing demand, we shall soon have no money to spend on anything else. Marian Waters

Pebworth, Worcestershire