Parliamentary debate on privatisation of NHS

Perhaps we should start with what we agree on, which seems to me fundamental for all of us in Parliament: the NHS is more precious than perhaps any institution except our monarchy and democracy.
Click to expand...

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

I'd much rather have the NHS than the monarchy!

I will briefly raise what matters more in the longer term about the NHS, a subject that this petition could have tackled. The real issue is the long-term funding of the NHS. As a nation, we cannot lurch from year to year with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care effectively going cap in hand to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for more cash to bail out the NHS. We need a longer-term, agreed basis on which to fund the NHS; I suggest at least five and ideally 10 years, so that everyone can plan ahead on what is needed to fund our NHS, with cross-party consensus. That way, never again can we face a situation in a general election of leaflets saying, “24 hours to save the NHS”. It is an old bogeyman that we must do away with.

I believe that the only effective way to do that is by bringing in equal contributions from the self-employed as well as the employed, and from those still generating income over a certain limit in retirement, through a dedicated source of funds or a hypothecated fund. The most obvious of those is national insurance, which does not really insure anybody for anything. It should be renamed the NHS fund. I put that proposal to our party before the last general election; understandably, there was not really enough time for it to be seriously considered. It would be a major change of direction and one not entered into lightly. There would be huge challenges with it. For example, what would we do in times of high unemployment, such as 2008 to 2010? Could the Budget effectively top up the NHS fund in such times?

That is why I am so pleased that the King’s Fund is researching that very issue now—would it be possible to have a hypothecated fund to fund the NHS? Would national insurance be a good starting point? What sorts of hazards and potential would that throw up?
Click to expand...

The purpose of National Insurance in the UK has been changed several times over the years and has now become, effectively, just another source of income for the treasury. According to Wikipedia it provides 21.5% of the total income received by HMRC (UK equivalent of the IRS). There is nothing to stop governments using National Insurance in the way that it was originally intended - as a source of funds for the welfare state, and later, also as a source of funds for the NHS. Why introduce another tax when there is one already in place?

I wondered why Jeremy Hunt and others in the government were so keen on this idea of the NHS tax. And then I spotted a comment on an article which gave a very likely explanation.

Cast your mind back a few years to when people were first allowed to opt out of paying National Insurance towards the state pension because they were already paying into a private pension. Now imagine a future in which the rich and the middle classes pay into private healthcare policies and are allowed to opt out of paying for the NHS. The NHS would lose vast amounts of money overnight and would promptly collapse. Jeremy *unt and his ilk would have achieved their dearest wish in one fell swoop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom