[Metrobeans]

B474 - Exemption from NHS Treatment Bill 2012, Moleman1996

An Act to remove the eligibility for NHS treatment for what is covered under a person’s private healthcare policy.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1. Removal of eligibility
(1) Any person with a private healthcare plan shall no longer be eligible for NHS treatment for services which could be used privately under said plan
(2) It shall become an offence to try and use NHS treatment if you are covered from said treatment on your

(a) NHS Treatment refers to treatment at the cost of the NHS. Private treatment in NHS hospitals is NOT classed as NHS treatment, however NHS treatment in a Private hospital is classed as NHS treatment
(b) Private healthcare plan/scheme/policy refers to any form of healthcare plan a person is covered by, which is not funded more than 50% by the government. E.g. BUPA

2. Enforcement and Punishment
(1) The enforcement of this Act should be the sole responsibility of the health service of the UK.
(2) If a person/persons intentionally receives treatment on the NHS, in a non emergency situation for something that their private policy covered, and the NHS at a later date discovers this (having previously gone unnoticed), the NHS reserves the right to charge the person/s for the cost of the treatment at the time of receiving it.
(3) The NHS also reserves the right to remove the privilege of free prescriptions from any patient found to be in violation of this act under the terms determined in point 2.(2)
(4) If a patient has in the past had private healthcare and it expires or is stopped, then NHS treatment is once again available for whatever said policy covered. Full NHS eligibility is restored on the ending of a private healthcare plan.
(5) The Secretary of State will be granted the power to make exemptions to this Act as he finds necessary.

4. Commencement, short title and extent
(1) This Act may be cited as the Exemption from NHS Eligibilty Act, 2012
(2) This bill shall extend to the United Kingdom; and
(3) Shall come into force on the 6/6/2012 following Royal Assent.

[That Bearded Man]

I'm not sure the point of this, why would anyone on a private healthcare scheme want to use the NHS?

Anyway, I stand by my view that it should be free to all at the point of entry, thus I would vote no.

Also, is it logical to assume that your next bill will highlight that since the rich now NEVER use the NHS, they will receive some tax reduction? In which case, I'm also a no.

[JPKC]

Private healthcare companies generally provide services that supplement NHS treatment - I'm not sure how easily they'd be untangled.

Aye. This would destroy the private healthcare industry as we know it!

[cl_steele]

May i simply ask why? I seeno point to this bill so no from me.

[blueray]

What about emergencies?

[tehFrance]

I am quite frankly confused. I have private healthcare and I can assure you right now, I would not use the NHS for anything I can get privately, just like the rest of those that have private healthcare... what is the point in paying for it if I am going to use the NHS anyway?

[tehFrance]

(Original post by That Bearded Man)
Also, is it logical to assume that your next bill will highlight that since the rich now NEVER use the NHS, they will receive some tax reduction? In which case, I'm also a no.

Actually that is not a bad idea for those that do indeed take out private healthcare plans or go abroad for healthcare needs.

Thank you

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by blueray)
What about emergencies?

In emergencies, then you'd be allowed treatment. I think it says somewhere.

[chiggy321]

I can't see the purpose of this Bill really. If it was accompanied by a tax reduction of some kind then it might serve a purpose, however, it just seems to disadvantage private clients even more! I'm not suggesting for a minute that a private client would want to use the NHS, but at least in theory they've got the choice - an advantage justified by their payment for both their private healthcare plan and their taxes. I currently think it serves little purpose other than to ostracise the private client - so until it's accompanied by a tax break or a similar initiative, I'm not supportive.

[Student2806]

If those with private healthcare are paying taxes that contribute to the upkeep of the NHS, they are fully entitled to use NHS services. The alternative is to give them some sort of tax exemption. You can't remove someone's legal eligibility for NHS treatment but still expect them to pay for it. The whole point of the NHS is that it's theoretically available to absolutely everyone, regardless of whether they use it or not.

[StatusRed]

Is there any evidence that this is happening a lot?

[CyclopsRock]

Then it ceases to be a universal healthcare system. I'm OK with that, but... it's a bit of a slippery slope, that.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by chiggy321)
I can't see the purpose of this Bill really. If it was accompanied by a tax reduction of some kind then it might serve a purpose, however, it just seems to disadvantage private clients even more! I'm not suggesting for a minute that a private client would want to use the NHS, but at least in theory they've got the choice - an advantage justified by their payment for both their private healthcare plan and their taxes. I currently think it serves little purpose other than to ostracise the private client - so until it's accompanied by a tax break or a similar initiative, I'm not supportive.

(Original post by Student2806)
If those with private healthcare are paying taxes that contribute to the upkeep of the NHS, they are fully entitled to use NHS services. The alternative is to give them some sort of tax exemption. You can't remove someone's legal eligibility for NHS treatment but still expect them to pay for it. The whole point of the NHS is that it's theoretically available to absolutely everyone, regardless of whether they use it or not.

The long term aim is for this to lead to tax reductions, and I have a bill in production that is designed to follow this providing some tax exemption for those who dont use the services.

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
Then it ceases to be a universal healthcare system. I'm OK with that, but... it's a bit of a slippery slope, that.

Not really, once you no longer have the policy you can go to the NHS for anything, and in emergencies where urgent treatment is required you will be treated by the NHS.

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
Not really, once you no longer have the policy you can go to the NHS for anything, and in emergencies where urgent treatment is required you will be treated by the NHS.

I meant conceptually. As soon as it's fair game for the NHS to refuse British citizens healthcare, it is a fairly binary switch. Either it is universal or it isn't. Once you start having check and holds, it's a much smaller step to then extend that further.

[chiggy321]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
The long term aim is for this to lead to tax reductions, and I have a bill in production that is designed to follow this providing some tax exemption for those who dont use the services.

In which case would it not make sense to incorporate the tax exemption into this Bill? Until that is done I still cannot support this Bill. Otherwise there's a risk that these provisions will get passed but the tax exemptions will not - in which case private clients would be paying for the NHS but banned from using it.

[Mechie]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
The long term aim is for this to lead to tax reductions, and I have a bill in production that is designed to follow this providing some tax exemption for those who dont use the services.

That sounds like the worst bill ever. "From each according to their ability (to pay) to each according to their need". Basically, the purpose of taxation is that people contribute what the can afford into a collectivised pot where the money can be spend when people need to use the money in the form of services.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by chiggy321)
In which case would it not make sense to incorporate the tax exemption into this Bill? Until that is done I still cannot support this Bill. Otherwise there's a risk that these provisions will get passed but the tax exemptions will not - in which case private clients would be paying for the NHS but banned from using it.

that's a good point, I think i'll send it for a second readnig and include that

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
I meant conceptually. As soon as it's fair game for the NHS to refuse British citizens healthcare, it is a fairly binary switch. Either it is universal or it isn't. Once you start having check and holds, it's a much smaller step to then extend that further.

Perhaps change it then so the NHS can charge you for your treatment if you could have had it done on your private policy? That way its still universal but its worth your while to use your private policy.

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
That sounds like the worst bill ever. "From each according to their ability (to pay) to each according to their need". Basically, the purpose of taxation is that people contribute what the can afford into a collectivised pot where the money can be spend when people need to use the money in the form of services.

Nope, the purpose of taxation is to generate revenue for the state, to spend as they wish. Only recently do we have this idea of the people who use the least contribute the most. Essentially its unfair.

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by Student2806)
If those with private healthcare are paying taxes that contribute to the upkeep of the NHS, they are fully entitled to use NHS services. The alternative is to give them some sort of tax exemption. You can't remove someone's legal eligibility for NHS treatment but still expect them to pay for it. The whole point of the NHS is that it's theoretically available to absolutely everyone, regardless of whether they use it or not.

This.

[chrisawhitmore]

Even with the tax exemptions, this creates a two tier health service, with the poorer people paying to keep the NHS (which would presumably decline through lack of funding) and richer people moving to private healthcare schemes. The tax exemptions would also be at risk of abuse by low cost, minimal service private health providers who do the bare minimum to qualify for tax exemptions allowing customers to use them to avoid tax.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
Even with the tax exemptions, this creates a two tier health service, with the poorer people paying to keep the NHS (which would presumably decline through lack of funding) and richer people moving to private healthcare schemes. The tax exemptions would also be at risk of abuse by low cost, minimal service private health providers who do the bare minimum to qualify for tax exemptions allowing customers to use them to avoid tax.

It wouldn't be a straight "you pay, you don''t" system. The amount of tax would be based on the amount of services you can use, so a minimal private health service wouldn't gain you huge tax benefits.

Also, the poorer people would not actually be paying any more in tax, as the costs of the NHS would be reduced.