Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B338 - Health Bill 2010 (Second Reading) Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    B338 - Health Bill 2010, Government
    An Act to reduce healthcare burden on the government in the United Kingdom, cutting the most regressive taxes and subsidising healthcare insurance for the poorest to ensure a universal healthcare system remains, while giving people the freedom to choose how they spend their own money.

    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 Sale of NHS Assets
    (1) The National Health Service Act 2006 (c.41) is hereby repealed.
    (2) The following quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations (QUANGOs) are hereby disbanded:
    (a) National Patient Safety Agency
    (b) The Independent Reconfiguration Panel
    (c) National Treatment Agency
    (d) Connecting for Health
    (e) NHS Appointments Commission
    (f) The NHS Litigation Authority
    (3) The NHS Asset Allocation Commission shall be set up and;
    (a) It shall decide the best way of grouping NHS assets for sale.
    (b) It shall make sure no more than 20% of any type of asset is owned by one company.
    (4) NHS assets will be auctioned off to the highest bidder in a sealed bid auction by the NHS Asset Allocation Commission.

    2 Medical Savings Accounts
    (1) Each person aged 16 years and above shall have a medical savings account (MSA); and
    (2) Each person shall save a portion of their earnings into this account according to Schedule 1.
    (3) Money in an MSA may only be used for spending on Health Services.
    (4) For the purposes of this Act, "Health Services" are defined as "All services dealing with the diagnosis and treatment of disease, or the promotion, maintenance and restoration of health; all medicines (as designated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) designed for the treatment or prevention of a disease; all dental care (including cosmetic); cosmetic surgery, and care for the elderly."
    (5) In the case where a person contributes less than the amounts as set out in Schedule 2 in any given tax year, the government shall top it up to this level.
    (6) In the case that a person has saved the amount as set out in Schedule 3 that tax year, they are not obliged to save more money to their MSA that tax year.
    (7) People may transfer responsibility of their Medical Savings Account to another person or organisation; and
    (8) In the case that responsibility has been transferred, money in the MSA can be spent only on the original owner of that MSA.

    3 Insurance & Risk Equalisation
    (1) It shall be mandatory to purchase catastrophe health insurance.
    (2) In the case that someone does not have catastrophe insurance cover, they are liable to a fine of up to £2000; and
    (a) Any fine imposed shall take into account ability to pay.
    (b) Courts may order community service instead of a fine in the case of those unwilling or unable to pay.
    (c) Courts may pardon someone in exceptional circumstances, including but not limited to poverty.
    (3) Catastrophe health insurance is defined for the purposes of this bill as "Insurance, with a very high deductible, covering an injury or illness with medical expenses that are above the normal parameters of basic health cover."
    (4) A risk equalisation pool shall be created and operated by the Department for Health; and
    (5) It shall be used to equalise risk through "risk taxes" and "risk subsidies" including, but not limited to the following factors:
    (a) Gender
    (b) Health Status
    (c) Age
    (d) Socio-economic Status
    (6) A price level will be determined for a decent level of catastrophe insurance by the Department of Health and this shall be added to the basket of goods covered by the Poverty Abolition Act.

    4 Insurance Claims & Arbitration
    (1) It is the responsibility of the health company, not the patient to claim for the cost under health insurance.
    (2) No hospital shall be permitted to refuse inpatient care to anyone on the grounds of a lack of health insurance.
    (3) Hospitals shall be permitted to use the courts in order to extract payment in the case of someone not having health insurance.
    (4) The Court of Health Arbitration shall be set up and shall arbitrate in the following circumstances:
    (a) Ordering payment where an individual does not have catastrophe health insurance.
    (b) Ordering payment where an insurance company refuses to pay the health services company.
    (5) The Court of Health Arbitration shall use the same criteria as set out in Section 3.2.a, 3.2.b and 3.2.c of this Act when ordering payment where the person does not have health insurance.
    (6) In the case that the court orders that an individual or insurance company is not liable to the full cost of their treatment, the government shall pay the health company the remaining cost directly.

    5 Information Dissemination
    (1) Department for Health shall publish the 50th and 90th percentile bill size for a range of treatments by different companies annually.
    (2) Department for Health shall publish risk-adjusted survival rates for a range of diseases as treated by different companies annually.
    (3) The information contained within sections 4(1) and 4(2) of this Act shall be available on the Department for Health website.
    (4) The fact that catastrophe insurance is mandatory, and the relevant sanctions shall be advertised on TV, radio and billboards by the Department of Health.

    6 Abolition of Council Tax
    (1) Local Government Finance Act 1992 (c.14) is hereby repealed; and
    (a) any shortfall in tax revenue due to this shall be met by central government funding to councils.

    7 Reduction in VAT
    (1) In section 2(1) of Value Added Tax Act 1994 (rate of VAT), for “20 per cent” substitute “15 per cent”.

    8 Reduction in Alcohol Duties
    (1) Alcohol Liquor Duties Act 1979 is amended as follows:
    (2) In section 5 (rate of duty on spirits), for “£23.80” substitute “£11.90”.
    (3) In section 36(1AA)(a) (standard rate of duty on beer), for “£17.32” substitute “£8.66”.
    (4) In section 62(1A) (rates of duty on cider)—
    (a) in paragraph (a) (rate of duty per hectolitre in the case of sparkling cider of a strength exceeding 5.5 per cent), for “£217.83” substitute “£108.96”,
    (b) in paragraph (b) (rate of duty per hectolitre in the case of cider of a strength exceeding 7.5 per cent which is not sparkling cider), for “£54.04” substitute “£27.02”, and
    (c) in paragraph (c) (rate of duty per hectolitre in any other case), for “£36.01” substitute “£18.00”.
    (5) In section 62(1A) (as amended by subsection (4))—
    (a) in paragraph (b), for “£25.11” substitute “£12.55”, and
    (b) in paragraph (c), for “£16.73” substitute “£8.36”.
    (6) For the table in Schedule 1 substitute—


    9 Reduction in Tobacco Duties
    (1) For the table in Schedule 1 to Tobacco Products Duties Act 1979 substitute—


    10 Reduction In Income Tax
    (1) In section 3.1 of the Poverty Abolition Act 2009 for "thirty-seven" substitute "thirty-two and a half".

    11 Commencement
    (1) Sections 1.3 and 1.4 of this Act shall come into force on the day upon which this Act has been passed.
    (2) All other provisions contained within this Act shall come into force on 1 April 2012.

    12 Short Title
    (1) Upon receipt of Royal Assent this Act may be cited as the Health Act 2010

    Schedule 1
    Those aged 16 to 35 years: 6.5%
    Those aged 35 to 45 years: 7.5%
    Those aged 45 to 60 years: 8.5%
    Those aged 60 years and above: 9%

    Schedule 2
    Those aged 16 to 35 years: £1250
    Those aged 35 to 45 years: £1500
    Those aged 45 to 60 years: £1650
    Those aged 60 years and above: £1750

    Schedule 3
    Those aged 16 to 35 years: £2500
    Those aged 35 to 45 years: £3000
    Those aged 45 to 60 years: £3300
    Those aged 60 years and above: £3500

    The Short VersionThis bill replaces the NHS with a system of Medical Savings Accounts that people can use to spend on any Health Services, and risk equalised, compulsory catastrophe health insurance, to cover costs that are exceptional (due to an accident), or large bills. The money for catastrophe health insurance is provided for by extra payments through the PAA, and medical savings accounts are topped up for the poorer in society.

    The money saved then goes into a package of tax cuts. This is a program designed to both reduce the cost of living for the poorest, to reduce health externality taxes, since the externality is now internalised, and to let those working keep more of their money. It takes VAT down to 15%, which will help the poorest. Likewise the scrapping of council tax is a huge burden off the shoulders of the poor. We have halved all alcohol and tobacco duties, since government spending on health is around halved, and we have reduced income tax by 4.5p in the pound to a new rate of 32.5%.

    ChangesA couple, some SPAG. Then, I've split off Section 4 and changes that a bit, meaning there is now a Court of Health Arbitration to deal with non-payment by insurance companies and expands on the case where the individual has failed to purchase health insurance.

    I've also put in another variable to equalise risk on, since I thought it might be relevant, socio-economic status. It should be noted that risk equalisation is not limited to those four factors, but must include them.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I will look at this Bill later. There is a lot to get through!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Forgive me if the reply is brief, but my laptop is having some serious problems with TSR, and cutting out on me in the middle of writing a long reply.

    Firstly, we need a definition of where exactly the line is between normal medical treatment, and treatment to be paid from catastrophic insurance. I know you talk about costs of treatment, but is it simply a matter of dividing the minimum annual sum put into the PSA, by the number of days in a year, and anything costing over that is considered catastrophic?

    With the government subsidising the insurance industry, we are taking away all their risks, so they are there simply to make profit from people, with money going into bonuses, rather than being invested into the health service. And with it being legally mandatory... if this wasn't on TSR, i'd be asking you in all seriousness if you were on the take from these insurance companies. Seems like this is all being done in the interest of business, to a perverse level, and the health of the population coming last.

    And with the health service now in the private sector, also ready to take huge profits, whether from individuals, from insurance companies, and from government... prices are just going to go up and up. Oh, but the government covers it through PAA, so thats alright, we'll just keep giving more and more money to profit the insurance and health industries, as prices go up... seems rather... i don't know what the word is, insane, irrational, or just naive (no offence intended). The maths just don't add up. Thats why i asked who picks up the cost, sounds like its the government. Could the house please see your calculations as to how much approximately it believes PAA payments will increase under this legislation, and the cost of the 'subsidy' paid to insurance companies?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
    Forgive me if the reply is brief, but my laptop is having some serious problems with TSR, and cutting out on me in the middle of writing a long reply.

    Firstly, we need a definition of where exactly the line is between normal medical treatment, and treatment to be paid from catastrophic insurance. I know you talk about costs of treatment, but is it simply a matter of dividing the minimum annual sum put into the PSA, by the number of days in a year, and anything costing over that is considered catastrophic?
    That line is to be drawn by consumers and producers alike. I shall put in a line that requires something to have DH approval to count as catastrophe health insurance under the terms of this Bill. I don't wish to try to write a single insurance package for anyone because it wouldn't be accurate and nor would I want to make it a single product.

    I'll add that line of approval by the DH - and then that department chooses where that line is drawn. I'd argue the definition given in the Bill is fairly obvious, though.

    With the government subsidising the insurance industry, we are taking away all their risks, so they are there simply to make profit from people, with money going into bonuses, rather than being invested into the health service. And with it being legally mandatory... if this wasn't on TSR, i'd be asking you in all seriousness if you were on the take from these insurance companies. Seems like this is all being done in the interest of business, to a perverse level, and the health of the population coming last.

    And with the health service now in the private sector, also ready to take huge profits, whether from individuals, from insurance companies, and from government... prices are just going to go up and up. Oh, but the government covers it through PAA, so thats alright, we'll just keep giving more and more money to profit the insurance and health industries, as prices go up... seems rather... i don't know what the word is, insane, irrational, or just naive (no offence intended). The maths just don't add up. Thats why i asked who picks up the cost, sounds like its the government. Could the house please see your calculations as to how much approximately it believes PAA payments will increase under this legislation, and the cost of the 'subsidy' paid to insurance companies?
    This is all based on a fallacy (again), although at least this one stems from an assumption, rather than a direct and deliberate misrepresentation of the Bill. What you have done here is assumed that there will be one insurance company (or else I do not know how you have reached your conclusion).

    With more than one insurance company (and the relevant anti-competition restrictions that apply to all industry already) then there is a natural lid on prices. Consider car insurance, for example, since this is mandatory, yet prices do not rise and rise and rise, why? Well, simply because there are many firms in competition with each other, and so no one firm can raise the price up and up as they will lose customers. The same would apply to health. Why am I so confident there will be competition? Well, again, the car insurance market. There are similar barriers to entry and the market is competitive - why shouldn't health insurance be?

    As such, the rest of the post (which is based on the premise of massive price hikes through exploitation of monopoly power) doesn't really make sense. I'm happy to post the costing of the subsidies (which go to MSAs) and to PAA payments if you still wish.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    X
    Is there a cap on insurance fees?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    Is there a cap on insurance fees?
    No.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    No.
    Does this not therefore put health insurance out of the reach of some people just like car insurance to young drivers? if not why?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    Does this not therefore put health insurance out of the reach of some people just like car insurance to young drivers? if not why?
    No, because of the risk equalisation.

    It is as if the government subsidised insurance for more risky drivers and taxed it for less risky drivers, so as the equalise the risk to insurance companies (and thus the price).

    Risk equalisation is used in health insurance in Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, and Ireland.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    No, because of the risk equalisation.

    It is as if the government subsidised insurance for more risky drivers and taxed it for less risky drivers, so as the equalise the risk to insurance companies (and thus the price).

    Risk equalisation is used in health insurance in Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, and Ireland.
    Okay, that's all for now.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    This is all based on a fallacy (again), although at least this one stems from an assumption, rather than a direct and deliberate misrepresentation of the Bill. What you have done here is assumed that there will be one insurance company (or else I do not know how you have reached your conclusion).

    With more than one insurance company (and the relevant anti-competition restrictions that apply to all industry already) then there is a natural lid on prices. Consider car insurance, for example, since this is mandatory, yet prices do not rise and rise and rise, why? Well, simply because there are many firms in competition with each other, and so no one firm can raise the price up and up as they will lose customers. The same would apply to health. Why am I so confident there will be competition? Well, again, the car insurance market. There are similar barriers to entry and the market is competitive - why shouldn't health insurance be?

    As such, the rest of the post (which is based on the premise of massive price hikes through exploitation of monopoly power) doesn't really make sense. I'm happy to post the costing of the subsidies (which go to MSAs) and to PAA payments if you still wish.
    The difference is firstly, car insurance isn't mandatory. An individual can choose whether or not to use a car, or alternatives such as public transport. If insurance was so high that people chose not to use cars, the insurance companies would have to reduce prices. With this health insurance its different, because it is mandatory for everyone. However, many of the terms of insurance are mandatory too, as per what it covers, as well as regulation of fees that the companies can charge (using subsidies to cover many of the usual factors which would cause insurance costs to vary between individuals). These companies i am assuming wont have the choice not to insure someone? (otherwise what are the legal ramifications for someone who can't get health insurance, because the companies wont offer it?), so they will price in the cost of the most expensive customers (especially if, as you say, chronic conditions are covered, which basically means that companies will have to take people on with known conditions, which they will have to pay out huge sums for). Either this means the government will be paying massive subsidies to these insurance companies for these people, or the companies will price insurance at a high rate to cover this.
    I agree, unlike the train lines, there will be competition created by this legislation, but because of the way the market is structured and regulated, it seems to me that these companies have a captive market, as well as a government paying them huge amounts in subsidies, so have power over everyone, and will exploit it. I have no confidence in this particular scenario that competition will produce the neccessary level of pricing to make this worthwhile.

    In this case, it seems to me that private sector inclusion, and this method in particular, just brings unneccessary costs. Everyone receives PAA, and this legislation increases PAA to cover insurance costs. So instead of taxation going to the government, who then fund the health service, taxation is now going to the government, who then give it back to the individual, who then pays the insurance company, and the MSA account, which then get paid from at different times for different treatments, with a court required to arbitrate if there are any problems. Yes, there is a huge amount of red tape and adminstration in the health service, but that can be looked at. I'm not a fan of mass public ownership, just in those areas where it is neccessary, and the health service is one of these areas.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I worry about the sudden removal of so many QUANGOS at once and the potential risks that it could cause, endangering patients and the NHS as a whole.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    I worry about the sudden removal of so many QUANGOS at once and the potential risks that it could cause, endangering patients and the NHS as a whole.
    Well yes, it does 'endanger' the NHS since it replaces it with a different system. The QUANGOS are a part of the current NHS system but would be no longer needed if this were to pass.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
    The difference is firstly, car insurance isn't mandatory. An individual can choose whether or not to use a car, or alternatives such as public transport. If insurance was so high that people chose not to use cars, the insurance companies would have to reduce prices. With this health insurance its different, because it is mandatory for everyone.
    This is true, however the competitive nature of the market (and the increased market size will only help that) is what keeps downward pressure on prices. An individual insurance company can't charge huge amounts just because it is mandatory for an individual to buy insurance, since they can buy it off another provider. Indeed, making insurance mandatory does not have implications for any one firm, it just guarantees the market size. The distinction here between industry and firm is one you are failing to make.

    However, many of the terms of insurance are mandatory too, as per what it covers, as well as regulation of fees that the companies can charge (using subsidies to cover many of the usual factors which would cause insurance costs to vary between individuals). These companies i am assuming wont have the choice not to insure someone? (otherwise what are the legal ramifications for someone who can't get health insurance, because the companies wont offer it?), so they will price in the cost of the most expensive customers (especially if, as you say, chronic conditions are covered, which basically means that companies will have to take people on with known conditions, which they will have to pay out huge sums for). Either this means the government will be paying massive subsidies to these insurance companies for these people, or the companies will price insurance at a high rate to cover this.[/quote]
    Did you even read section 3? Please do. Then you'll see 100% of what you just said is false. You have described a general problem with health insurance, one that was easily overcome with the risk equalisation pool, as used in many countries around the world. See my reply to Cardozo for the list.

    I agree, unlike the train lines, there will be competition created by this legislation, but because of the way the market is structured and regulated, it seems to me that these companies have a captive market, as well as a government paying them huge amounts in subsidies, so have power over everyone, and will exploit it. I have no confidence in this particular scenario that competition will produce the neccessary level of pricing to make this worthwhile.
    Refer to my reply to your first paragraph in this post.

    In this case, it seems to me that private sector inclusion, and this method in particular, just brings unneccessary costs. Everyone receives PAA, and this legislation increases PAA to cover insurance costs. So instead of taxation going to the government, who then fund the health service, taxation is now going to the government, who then give it back to the individual, who then pays the insurance company, and the MSA account, which then get paid from at different times for different treatments, with a court required to arbitrate if there are any problems. Yes, there is a huge amount of red tape and adminstration in the health service, but that can be looked at. I'm not a fan of mass public ownership, just in those areas where it is neccessary, and the health service is one of these areas.
    Well your initial line of reasoning is wrong, because you assume that catastrophe health insurance would be used for most health expenditure (and have an according price tag, paid for my government). No, most expenditure will come from Medical Savings Accounts. However, even if your description was accurate, what would be wrong with that? Government paying for health service but leaving the provision to the experts? Indeed, if this does not pass I intend to move down that path, as there is plenty of evidence to suggest pluralistic provision, from providers who are organisationally independent from the financiers is far better than a single state run model.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    Well yes, it does 'endanger' the NHS since it replaces it with a different system. The QUANGOS are a part of the current NHS system but would be no longer needed if this were to pass.
    Yes, however revamping a whole system literally over night is not wise and fraught with problems in my opinion.

    This is not realistic, a gradual implementation of some of these measures could be digested, however this Bill would involve a lot of overhaul, in a very short amount of time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    Yes, however revamping a whole system literally over night is not wise and fraught with problems in my opinion.

    This is not realistic, a gradual implementation of some of these measures could be digested, however this Bill would involve a lot of overhaul, in a very short amount of time.
    Well there's not that much to be done, and it leaves a 2-year time frame for it to happen.

    Essentially, what we see initially is an auctioning off of NHS assets initially, and 2 years for insurance companies to plan and offer catastrophe packages. The medical savings accounts take no time to implement, GPs surgeries would be owned by those GPs most probably (I'll put in a clause about this, giving them preference for bids for their own surgeries, for a third reading - it's not in the Bill currently). Then, health services go on. The same people can do the providing, they just work for different people. Much of the infrastructure is there, it's just changing hands.

    It's not a particularly lengthy process or one that should take a long time, but if it makes you happier I'll change the commencement to 2013 not 2012?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
    The difference is firstly, car insurance isn't mandatory. An individual can choose whether or not to use a car, or alternatives such as public transport. If insurance was so high that people chose not to use cars, the insurance companies would have to reduce prices. With this health insurance its different, because it is mandatory for everyone. However, many of the terms of insurance are mandatory too, as per what it covers, as well as regulation of fees that the companies can charge (using subsidies to cover many of the usual factors which would cause insurance costs to vary between individuals). These companies i am assuming wont have the choice not to insure someone? (otherwise what are the legal ramifications for someone who can't get health insurance, because the companies wont offer it?), so they will price in the cost of the most expensive customers (especially if, as you say, chronic conditions are covered, which basically means that companies will have to take people on with known conditions, which they will have to pay out huge sums for). Either this means the government will be paying massive subsidies to these insurance companies for these people, or the companies will price insurance at a high rate to cover this.
    I agree, unlike the train lines, there will be competition created by this legislation, but because of the way the market is structured and regulated, it seems to me that these companies have a captive market, as well as a government paying them huge amounts in subsidies, so have power over everyone, and will exploit it. I have no confidence in this particular scenario that competition will produce the neccessary level of pricing to make this worthwhile.

    In this case, it seems to me that private sector inclusion, and this method in particular, just brings unneccessary costs. Everyone receives PAA, and this legislation increases PAA to cover insurance costs. So instead of taxation going to the government, who then fund the health service, taxation is now going to the government, who then give it back to the individual, who then pays the insurance company, and the MSA account, which then get paid from at different times for different treatments, with a court required to arbitrate if there are any problems. Yes, there is a huge amount of red tape and adminstration in the health service, but that can be looked at. I'm not a fan of mass public ownership, just in those areas where it is neccessary, and the health service is one of these areas.
    You always put it so well.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    Well there's not that much to be done, and it leaves a 2-year time frame for it to happen.

    Essentially, what we see initially is an auctioning off of NHS assets initially, and 2 years for insurance companies to plan and offer catastrophe packages. The medical savings accounts take no time to implement, GPs surgeries would be owned by those GPs most probably (I'll put in a clause about this, giving them preference for bids for their own surgeries, for a third reading - it's not in the Bill currently). Then, health services go on. The same people can do the providing, they just work for different people. Much of the infrastructure is there, it's just changing hands.

    It's not a particularly lengthy process or one that should take a long time, but if it makes you happier I'll change the commencement to 2013 not 2012?
    I see what you're saying about the commencement but I don't think you quite understand my point.

    To me the Bill says: "These QUANGOs exist, tomorrow the Bill comes into extent, these QUANGOS vanish.", if you follow me.

    Could something be added that would lead the gradual de establishment of these QUANGOs?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    This is true, however the competitive nature of the market (and the increased market size will only help that) is what keeps downward pressure on prices. An individual insurance company can't charge huge amounts just because it is mandatory for an individual to buy insurance, since they can buy it off another provider. Indeed, making insurance mandatory does not have implications for any one firm, it just guarantees the market size. The distinction here between industry and firm is one you are failing to make.
    But it also creates an inbalance of power between the buyers and sellers in the market, above and beyond the usual imbalance due to the size of insurance companies. Buyers have to buy, regardless of price. There is no price regulation in the market; the subsidies guarantee that no-one will have to pay significantly higher than the 'normal' price, but nothing regulates this normal price. It is easy to see how the failures in the banks have held our financial system hostage, due to their excessive power and influence... i don't want a system where insurance companies are able to hold the government and population at their mercy.


    Did you even read section 3? Please do. Then you'll see 100% of what you just said is false. You have described a general problem with health insurance, one that was easily overcome with the risk equalisation pool, as used in many countries around the world. See my reply to Cardozo for the list.
    Yes, i read it. And to be fair, i was putting a point i already knew the answer to. Under this legislation the government pays for anyone with chronic or pre-existing conditions. But how much? Do the insurance companies just say 'oh, we'd charge this guy £100,000 a year for insurance because he is high risk', and government just goes and covers almost all of it? Seems prone to exploitation.


    Well your initial line of reasoning is wrong, because you assume that catastrophe health insurance would be used for most health expenditure (and have an according price tag, paid for my government). No, most expenditure will come from Medical Savings Accounts. However, even if your description was accurate, what would be wrong with that? Government paying for health service but leaving the provision to the experts? Indeed, if this does not pass I intend to move down that path, as there is plenty of evidence to suggest pluralistic provision, from providers who are organisationally independent from the financiers is far better than a single state run model.
    The experts are the medical professionals working in hospitals. The doctors and nurses who treat people each day. Insurance companies aren't specialists in medicine, they are specialists in making money. We've already established that the new system is inefficient, and that insurance companies are an unneccessary middle man in the whole process. If you bring forward legislation which is designed to put more power and responsibility in the hands of medical professionals, or to reduce administration and red tape in the NHS, i would certainly feel positive towards those goals. But this bill is mostly about the financial system behind medical care, and not medical care itself.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This is in cessation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Third Reading.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 3, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.