No it wasn't, but I understand that a proportion is allocated to the NHS: £20.8 billion (out of £82.2bn) in 2013-14.
Yes it was.
Labour changed the law in The Social Security Administration Act 1992 to enable some NI contributions income to be syphoned off to help pay for the day to day running costs of the NHS before the money goes into the NI fund where it is ring-fenced by law and can only be used to pay out contributions based benefits.
Labours justification for doing this was the vast amount that had accumulated in the NI fund at the time and was continuing to accumulate. That was due in part to contributions based benefits having their link to average earnings index removed in the 1980s while NI contributions paid by people remained link to their earnings. But was done despite knowing that with an ageing demographic we would need all the money we could find in future to pay pensions.
The change by Labour syphoning off some NI contributions before they get to the NI fund has resulted in the NI fund running at a loss and eating into its capital. But for the change the NI contributions going into the fund would currently more than cover NI fund outgoings paying contributions based benefits. The NI system would still be running as it was set up to and would still be fit for purpose. As it is eventually it is going to go bust.
Labour changed the law in The Social Security Administration Act 1992 to enable some NI contributions income to be syphoned off to help pay for the day to day running costs of the NHS before the money goes into the NI fund where it is ring-fenced by law and can only be used to pay out contributions based benefits.
Labours justification for doing this was the vast amount that had accumulated in the NI fund at the time and was continuing to accumulate. That was due in part to contributions based benefits having their link to average earnings index removed in the 1980s while NI contributions paid by people remained link to their earnings. But was done despite knowing that with an ageing demographic we would need all the money we could find in future to pay pensions.
The change by Labour syphoning off some NI contributions before they get to the NI fund has resulted in the NI fund running at a loss and eating into its capital. But for the change the NI contributions going into the fund would currently more than cover NI fund outgoings paying contributions based benefits.
I was actually agreeing with you that it wasn't originally set up for that purpose.
The Conservatives said they were not privatizing the NHS and that they would spend whatever was needed on the NHS. That will be what people voted for in regards to the NHS.
Didn't the Conservatives also promise no top down reorganisation of the NHS?
The Tories are already plundering the NHS by selling contracts to their friends and in return getting large payments.
I would favour a healthcare approach more like continental Europe. We should be very careful not to end up with a US style mess though.
If this country looked to Europe for ideas instead of America, things could be so much better.
Nice to see the Torygraph not wasting any time with the propaganda. I hope Doris Rightwing and Ada Toryvoter have got enough stuffed away in the mattress for when they need all that private medical care....
Having been the relative off some who received heath care, and personally the recipient of heath care in Spain, I can say that it is far better than the UK.
Woe betide you if you do not speak Spanish though [most doctors speak English mind you]. You have to pay for interpreters.
If this country looked to Europe for ideas instead of America, things could be so much better.
Nice to see the Torygraph not wasting any time with the propaganda. I hope Doris Rightwing and Ada Toryvoter have got enough stuffed away in the mattress for when they need all that private medical care....
Exactly - European systems seem so much better. But hold on, they involve higher taxation for better services; Cameron & Co would rather shift the cost onto Joe P. Muggins, regardless of whether he can afford it or not.
I am cueing next two months to have my shoulder blade shaved of 2 cm and the bone scraped out of debris.....then I am due to have a total knee replacement as I have no cartridge bi laterally I am bone on bone grinding pain.....then I get to have my cataracts done ....then I have the joy of some bowel removal and finally my bladder sorted ....think I will get insurance?
I am cueing next two months to have my shoulder blade shaved of 2 cm and the bone scraped out of debris.....then I am due to have a total knee replacement as I have no cartridge bi laterally I am bone on bone grinding pain.....then I get to have my cataracts done ....then I have the joy of some bowel removal and finally my bladder sorted ....think I will get insurance?
..... of course ..... there's nothing worry about ..... trust us ..... *smirk*
It would never happen.its scaremongering. If the Tories tried they'd be obliterated at subsequent elections so they won't go there
You think the Tories are going to announce it? No. It'll be done behind the scenes, bit by bit, until it's all been flogged off to any City bidder and there's nothing left to save.
The Tories need to watch it though. It's all well and good selling off anything and everything but they have almost bargain basemented everything there is.... Oh no!
If they do privatise, it'll be the biggest mistake for the nation.
Any bits that are profitable will be sold off.
They don't care who to .
The French The Germans The Americans or anyone else.
Maybe India could use the money we give them to buy into it.
Britain owns very little of its own infrastructure it's been picked to bits since Thatcher
everything that was in public ownership has gradually torn apart and as the public owned it we were never given a referendum on its sale.
The days are gone when Brits we're proud of what we had achieved in the world.
To day all that has gone we live in a country owned by foreigners and directed by foreigners in the shape of multi-nationals.
The article also points out that spending per capita is more than 2% of GDP higher on average in countries with SHI (social health insurance) systems than in Britain. So isn't much of their better performance simply down to better funding (however it's done)?
Plus more doctors paid less. But we have more alternative, high paid, careers people would go into, if medicine doesn't pay.
They are wrong - having a wife from Thailand I can see what it is like when you do not have something like the NHS. It is important to have a health system which can support both rich and poor. We may have to change some things, increased involvement of patients in their care, early detection and prevention. But that fundamental aspect must and will remain.
Social insurance is the way to go. The NHS is a national catastrophe and nothing will change whilst we obsess about who provides the treatment rather than the outcomes.
Comments
Labour changed the law in The Social Security Administration Act 1992 to enable some NI contributions income to be syphoned off to help pay for the day to day running costs of the NHS before the money goes into the NI fund where it is ring-fenced by law and can only be used to pay out contributions based benefits.
Labours justification for doing this was the vast amount that had accumulated in the NI fund at the time and was continuing to accumulate. That was due in part to contributions based benefits having their link to average earnings index removed in the 1980s while NI contributions paid by people remained link to their earnings. But was done despite knowing that with an ageing demographic we would need all the money we could find in future to pay pensions.
The change by Labour syphoning off some NI contributions before they get to the NI fund has resulted in the NI fund running at a loss and eating into its capital. But for the change the NI contributions going into the fund would currently more than cover NI fund outgoings paying contributions based benefits. The NI system would still be running as it was set up to and would still be fit for purpose. As it is eventually it is going to go bust.
I was actually agreeing with you that it wasn't originally set up for that purpose.
Didn't the Conservatives also promise no top down reorganisation of the NHS?
The Tories are already plundering the NHS by selling contracts to their friends and in return getting large payments.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/03/healthcare-companies-links-tories-nhs-contracts
If this country looked to Europe for ideas instead of America, things could be so much better.
Nice to see the Torygraph not wasting any time with the propaganda. I hope Doris Rightwing and Ada Toryvoter have got enough stuffed away in the mattress for when they need all that private medical care....
Woe betide you if you do not speak Spanish though [most doctors speak English mind you]. You have to pay for interpreters.
It is a Spanish health service after all.
Exactly - European systems seem so much better. But hold on, they involve higher taxation for better services; Cameron & Co would rather shift the cost onto Joe P. Muggins, regardless of whether he can afford it or not.
..... of course ..... there's nothing worry about ..... trust us ..... *smirk*
Love, Dave.
You think the Tories are going to announce it? No. It'll be done behind the scenes, bit by bit, until it's all been flogged off to any City bidder and there's nothing left to save.
The Tories need to watch it though. It's all well and good selling off anything and everything but they have almost bargain basemented everything there is.... Oh no!
Any bits that are profitable will be sold off.
They don't care who to .
The French The Germans The Americans or anyone else.
Maybe India could use the money we give them to buy into it.
Britain owns very little of its own infrastructure it's been picked to bits since Thatcher
everything that was in public ownership has gradually torn apart and as the public owned it we were never given a referendum on its sale.
The days are gone when Brits we're proud of what we had achieved in the world.
To day all that has gone we live in a country owned by foreigners and directed by foreigners in the shape of multi-nationals.
Plus more doctors paid less. But we have more alternative, high paid, careers people would go into, if medicine doesn't pay.
* ambulance not included. Visa/MasterCard/AmEx accepted. Closed Friday-Wednesday.
They are wrong - having a wife from Thailand I can see what it is like when you do not have something like the NHS. It is important to have a health system which can support both rich and poor. We may have to change some things, increased involvement of patients in their care, early detection and prevention. But that fundamental aspect must and will remain.
Social insurance is the way to go. The NHS is a national catastrophe and nothing will change whilst we obsess about who provides the treatment rather than the outcomes.
Thank god Burnham is not back in charge.
Add to that Dentists.
And the lovely work of MacMillian Nurses
Ohh ..errr you sound like the gyno I met behind the bus station