We already have an insurance based health scheme. We pay National Insurance specifically for: Health care, free at the point of use Unemployment benefit when out of work State Pension None of these are actually gifts, they are our entitlement because we contribute to the insurance based system.
All of that is still defined by legislation, there are no allocated pots + NI is also not spent exclusively on those services. For example, pensions can be legislated to be triple locked, and if this is possible, then it's also possible to legislate for appointment fees (which I think would be bad)
It does not detract from the fact that National Insurance defines clear entitlements as a result of contributions to the fund.
One is entitled to healthcare even if they never paid NI. The truth is all of that is just fluid legislation, and can change one way or another depending on the whims of the Parliament.
The NHS is not paid for out of any sinking fund. NI is just a factored in tax drain devised as an 'offset', but NHS is paid for entirely out of normal govt deficit injections. I'm in the Netherlands now, where 'insurance' means €150+ per month, plus out of pocket costs.
The original establishment of National Insurance was to cover the 3 areas. General taxation may well supplement this and NI may well be used as a more general tax but it does not detract from the fat of NI, its purpose and therefore our entitlement to all defined benefits
The entitlement comes from policy, not from having paid NI. It's a hard discussion to have because everyone seems to think it is a sort of sinking fund. In theory NI could be abolished and it really wouldn't matter with regard to its funding. It isn't specific to that flow of funding.
Yep. For example, JSA is tied to the fact of one having paid NI but free at the point healthcare isn't. Nothing of that is "logical" or "unchangeable" in principle, it's just the policy controlled by the Parliament.
JSA is monitored from being in the taxation system, but is isn't paid or 'funded' by NI.
Ah, of course - if this is what is being discussed. There is no money earmarked for that from a specific tax (NI). But there is at least an arbitrary link between the two (also set by legislation), which is missing for other services. Entitlement indeed doesn't come from the payments made.
It isn't insurance. You can get the benefit of a state pension without paying any NI at all. There's no insurance scheme where you can get the benefit even if you never paid the premium.
You do NOT get the full pension unless you have paid something like 35 years of NI. You require to have at least 10 qualifying years on the NI record of contributions or credits So thats not quite true Is there anyone who has gone through life without ever paying NI? I think it is a bogus point
You can earn qualifying years without paying a penny of NI. I got 2 years just for being in the 6th form in the 1970s. More commonly, full-time carers and the disabled earn qualifying years without paying any NI. This is why it is good that it is a welfare benefit, not an insurance policy.
It is a CONTIBUTORY insurance system, designed to be paid according to peoples ability to pay and valuing those who seek further education, caring roles, etc. We CONTRIBUTE as a collective.
You're not wrong. It is contributory based on ability to pay. But that isn't how an insurance policy works. Premiums aren't set according to your ability to pay. What insurance policy or pension savings plan have you seen that is priced like that? Also, NI pays for things other than pensions.
As I stated before NI was the result of bring 2 funds together that originate from as far back as 1911, combined following the Beveridge Report in 1942. This single fund was for 3 specific things: Health care, free at the point of use Social Security Pensions This has been the case since.
Fine. But it isn't an insurance policy in any normal meaning of that.
And I never actually said that it was a traditional insurance scheme - there are no profits for a start. It is however a National Insurance scheme that exists and covers health care...is actually the most efficient way to support healthcare and it is available to all.
Well you said it was "an insurance-based scheme" but you have clarified what you meant.
It IS an insurance based scheme, just operates differently to profit based individual insurance based schemes. It is in the name...it is a national contributory insurance scheme. Maybe read up on its history, educate yourself. It is STILL an insurance scheme.
They are known as benefits as if you are getting something for nothing.
I know but they are actually entitlements as we have paid for them via National Insurance contributions. The irony is that it was actually Winston Churchill who brought 2 funds together that became National Insurance in the early 1940's following the Beveridge Report.