Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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    (1) The National Health Service Act 2006 (c.41) is hereby repealed.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) The NHS Asset Allocation Commission shall sell NHS assets with the following objectives:
    (i) Maximise revenue from the sale of assets.
    (ii) Enable competition by different health providers.
    (iii) Minimise disruption from the transition of provision of health services to private individuals and companies.
    (5) The NHS Asset Allocation committee shall report to the Health select committee every 6 months until the completion of the process.
    (6) Once the process of the sale of NHS assets is complete, the NHS Asset Allocation Committee shall be disbanded.

    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”.
    (2) Sections 1(6) and 1(7) of Federal Act 2010 (Funding) are hereby repealed.

    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%.

    Changes For Second ReadingA 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.

    Changes For Third ReadingNot much here, just two things. On the reduction of VAT which now abolishes Federal Saes Tax from when the Federal Act would have come into play.

    The second thing is the change of the criteria that the NHS Asset Allocation Committee would use to sell off assets. It now takes into account disruption to services and competition concerns in the allocation of assets, not just revenue. Further to that, I've fleshed this out a bit with some detail on how often the committee reports to parliament, and set out that it shall no longer exist once it's done it's job.


    Previous Discussions:

    Second Reading
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It still doesn't address my issue of one day all of the QUANGOs exist, the next day they're all gone. I believe it should be gradual as I've explained.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    It still doesn't address my issue of one day all of the QUANGOs exist, the next day they're all gone. I believe it should be gradual as I've explained.
    when did you join the Libertarian party?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    when did you join the Libertarian party?
    What?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    What?
    well, unless TSR Labour have moved way to the Right since even the Election, then they still support the NHS, only people who oppose it are Libertarians and the Tories.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    well, unless TSR Labour have moved way to the Right since even the Election, then they still support the NHS, only people who oppose it are Libertarians and the Tories.
    Eh, what?

    When did I say I supported this?

    I merely pointed out a major issue I see with the Bill. I still don't agree with the principle of the Bill at all.

    Please don't jump to conclusions comrade.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    Eh, what?

    When did I say I supported this?

    I merely pointed out a major issue I see with the Bill. I still don't agree with the principle of the Bill at all.

    Please don't jump to conclusions comrade.
    then object to the principles, dont just bicker about the gradual changing, frankly your earlier post suggests that you like the bill just not the immediate scrapping of quango's ffs, if you object to a bill altogether then say so from the off to avoid confusion.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    then object to the principles, dont just bicker about the gradual changing, frankly your earlier post suggests that you like the bill just not the immediate scrapping of quango's ffs, if you object to a bill altogether then say so from the off to avoid confusion.
    Thanks for the advice but I will decide on my own conduct in the house.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No. I cannot look further than 4.i & 4.ii as it strikes me that the NHS will be sold to the highest bidder and not the best equipped. I also worry that separate hospitals owned by different organisations will have drastically different services as some may be more interested in operating profit than prolongation of life.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Fundamentally no. I reiterate previous points: an auction of the NHS to the highest bidder is not in our best interests. Competition between hospitals to make profit will overule patient care. Purchase of insurance should not determine whether you get medical aid or not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I echo the sentiments of my fellow party members. This will serve to strengthen the correlation between income and quality of healthcare when it should be reduced. Despite arguments to the contrary, I still cant believe that the need to make profit wouldn't lead to compromises in healthcare.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    No 100% The NHS is one of our country's greatest things.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Left Hand Drive)
    No 100% The NHS is one of our country's greatest things.

    Agreed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Left Hand Drive)
    No 100% The NHS is one of our country's greatest things.
    That may be so. But that doesn't mean that there can't be better alternatives available.

    This bill will provide everyone with lower tax bills by eliminating regressive taxes such as council tax and VAT (or Sales Tax as it's known from the Federal Britain Act); as well as providing a better, pluralistic health service. And despite what the left in the House think, all will have access to healthcare.

    The world rankings of health services categorically show that pluralistic health services are better than single providers. This bill provides the UK with a health service which everyone can access that will put us towards to the top of the world rankings.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandys1000)
    I echo the sentiments of my fellow party members. This will serve to strengthen the correlation between income and quality of healthcare when it should be reduced. Despite arguments to the contrary, I still cant believe that the need to make profit wouldn't lead to compromises in healthcare.
    How? Currently, all but the richest are subjected to a limited range of treatments, long waiting lists and a fairly average service. This allows everyone to escape that.

    (Original post by Peachz)
    Fundamentally no. I reiterate previous points: an auction of the NHS to the highest bidder is not in our best interests. Competition between hospitals to make profit will overule patient care. Purchase of insurance should not determine whether you get medical aid or not.
    How will hospitals compete successfully without providing the best patient care? It cannot overrule it when it is the biggest driver of incentives to provide it. Furthermore, it is not a sale of the NHS to the highest bidder, and not does purchase of insurance determine whether you get aid.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    No, no, no. This stinks of the disgraceful US system and it reminds me of the poll tax, super regressive. What about those who can't afford mandatory catastrophe health insurance? It just turns us into a little America. The bill at present would have them in a continual prosecution/acquittal ring as poverty bites but they haven't followed the law.

    If this was the German, French or Italian system, I'd maybe like it. However, it's just a veiled US system with a government fist holding onto it.

    Edit: I've just realised. This is the third reading. Shows where I've been recently. Still, after reading the act several times, this just ruins every bit of healthcare I get at the moment and would continually criminalise myself as I would be unable to purchase insurance.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    No. I cannot look further than 4.i & 4.ii as it strikes me that the NHS will be sold to the highest bidder and not the best equipped. I also worry that separate hospitals owned by different organisations will have drastically different services as some may be more interested in operating profit than prolongation of life.
    Perhaps you should, to 1.4.iii, which would address those concerns.

    I think all three objectives must be balanced, the government must get a good price, it must not sell assets in a way that enforces monopolies, and it must minimise disruption. Which of the three do you disagree with?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    It still doesn't address my issue of one day all of the QUANGOs exist, the next day they're all gone. I believe it should be gradual as I've explained.
    When the system changes, the QUANGOs no longer have a function.

    The transition process is the process of selling assets, which is being done over a longer period. Once that is complete - there's no need for the functions the QUANGOs carry out. Thus, they are there until their function ceases to be needed. I don't see that we should keep employing people there doing nothing once they cease to be useful in the name of gradualism.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teh User)
    No, no, no. This stinks of the disgraceful US system and it reminds me of the poll tax, super regressive. What about those who can't afford mandatory catastrophe health insurance? It just turns us into a little America. The bill at present would have them in a continual prosecution/acquittal ring as poverty bites but they haven't followed the law.

    If this was the German, French or Italian system, I'd maybe like it. However, it's just a veiled US system with a government fist holding onto it.

    Edit: I've just realised. This is the third reading. Shows where I've been recently. Still, after reading the act several times, this just ruins every bit of healthcare I get at the moment and would continually criminalise myself as I would be unable to purchase insurance.
    If I recall correctly, this is based on the Singaporean system and European systems. This has jack to do with America.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No.
 
 
 
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 7, 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • 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.