Reduced taxes if you are fit - would this work?
Discussion
As the title says really, what do we think to the premise that if a person takes care of the themselves ie , non smoking, not obese etc then they would pay less national insurance as they would be less of a drain on the state ?
workable in any way or a pipe dream ?
could it encourage folks to take care of themselves better ?
workable in any way or a pipe dream ?
could it encourage folks to take care of themselves better ?
Well, if the usa is being used as the example above, you have to remember the importance of employer funded health care.
It acts as a huge lever to stop employees quitting (and thus keep employee standards low) because of the huge cost.
Based on my personal experience: no, the usa private health care system does not lead to healthier citizens.
Its probably less healthy as poor people can't access decent preventative health care.
And regarding the original question: it would require administration, thresholds, assessments, arbitration, appeals and would be subject to fraud. (Think how many gym subscriptions would magically appear; how many doctors would suddenly be found to sign off on people's health). With that industry and the lawyers who would spring up to appeal claims would be a burden to thr country.
People with genetic conditions might take umbrage with it, disabilities, minorities who are susceptible to certain illnesses, women of course (the impacts of child birth and the menopause impacting that protected group more severley).
The contra to that would be trades (usually men) getting ill health issues due to their work.
It is a mine field basically.
The overall aim is laudable, and the government has pushed ahead with sugar taxes, and taxes on social ills like tobacco and alcohol.
But ultimately "the public", who are also "the voters" and "the tax payers" don't like being made to do things that are unpleaant- even if they are in their best interests.
Specifically:exercise being hard work and sugar/ fat/ salt tasting nice.
There would also be a sizeable chunk of the country who would die in a ditch (figuratively) saying the government should remain small and not interfere in people's freedoms to make stupid decisons.
A government assessment of your health for anything other than medical purposes would seem a step towards china's social credit system.
It acts as a huge lever to stop employees quitting (and thus keep employee standards low) because of the huge cost.
Based on my personal experience: no, the usa private health care system does not lead to healthier citizens.
Its probably less healthy as poor people can't access decent preventative health care.
And regarding the original question: it would require administration, thresholds, assessments, arbitration, appeals and would be subject to fraud. (Think how many gym subscriptions would magically appear; how many doctors would suddenly be found to sign off on people's health). With that industry and the lawyers who would spring up to appeal claims would be a burden to thr country.
People with genetic conditions might take umbrage with it, disabilities, minorities who are susceptible to certain illnesses, women of course (the impacts of child birth and the menopause impacting that protected group more severley).
The contra to that would be trades (usually men) getting ill health issues due to their work.
It is a mine field basically.
The overall aim is laudable, and the government has pushed ahead with sugar taxes, and taxes on social ills like tobacco and alcohol.
But ultimately "the public", who are also "the voters" and "the tax payers" don't like being made to do things that are unpleaant- even if they are in their best interests.
Specifically:exercise being hard work and sugar/ fat/ salt tasting nice.
There would also be a sizeable chunk of the country who would die in a ditch (figuratively) saying the government should remain small and not interfere in people's freedoms to make stupid decisons.
A government assessment of your health for anything other than medical purposes would seem a step towards china's social credit system.
350Matt said:
As the title says really, what do we think to the premise that if a person takes care of the themselves ie , non smoking, not obese etc then they would pay less national insurance as they would be less of a drain on the state ?
workable in any way or a pipe dream ?
Smokers are not a drain on the state they are a net benefit through the high tobacco taxes and the fact they die several years earlier thus costing less in pensions.workable in any way or a pipe dream ?
"We estimate a net saving of £14.7 billon per annum at current rates of consumption, with the costs smokers incur significantly outweighed by the sum of tobacco duty paid and old-age expenditures avoided due to premature mortality."
https://iea.org.uk/publications/smoking-and-the-pu...
Even if this was a good idea, which it is not, the costs would outweigh any benefits. Thousands of new medical professionals needed for everyones annual health MOT to get their NI and tax score for the next financial year.
Edited by irc on Friday 20th March 08:04
mike9009 said:
The problem with fit people is they live longer into retirement so cost more in pensions..... and then eventually need healthcare at the end.....
Agreed, what we really need is as many unhealthy people to die before they reach State Pension age so they are not a drain on the system, at the same time as refusing to treat them on the NHS because they are the root cause of their own health issues.A win win .
It does sound like both an easy to reach answer and ferociously complicated to implement. Who and how will anyone determine if I bother going to the gym, are smoking, like a beer, guzzle huge amounts of fizzy drink or stuff my face full of overly processed foods?
If it were implemented, it would be done along the path of least resistance and most likely pass off the responsibility to employers and health insurance, and as many have already said, send us down the path of the American system. Which looking at that, is not something I'd ever like to see in the UK.
If it were implemented, it would be done along the path of least resistance and most likely pass off the responsibility to employers and health insurance, and as many have already said, send us down the path of the American system. Which looking at that, is not something I'd ever like to see in the UK.
cliffords said:
Perhaps we could add in race or sexual orientation to include another level of discrimination.
A health service aimed at fit people who need less healthcare.
How do you come up with such utter nonsense?
Tell us that you're unfit without telling us that you're unfit!A health service aimed at fit people who need less healthcare.
How do you come up with such utter nonsense?
I don't see it as complete nonsense, it's just not workable.
Why should we all pay for the health care of people who don't give a s
t about their own health but expect the NHS to save them?How about certain treatments unavailable to you until you do something about your own poor state of health? In fact I think that is already the case for some, you need to lose weight before you can get certain things?
Perhaps if gym memberships were tax deductable that would be more workable.
Professional subscriptions are allowable for deduction against income tax.
Why not make say some gym etc subscriptions the same?
This would only benefit those who have or want such memberships by making them cheaper for the user.
(Obviously need to put some restrictions on it to prevent private clubs finding loopholes to taking advantage)
It might draw in more people signing up. (when I looked at a local membership with mine for swimming I decided not to join as being a single household I didn’t benefit from joint/family membership discounts & the frequency I was going it was questionable if membership was cheaper. Result I didn’t take membership, pay as you go only & then didn’t worry about missing weeks as I hadn’t paid for them…
Why not make say some gym etc subscriptions the same?
This would only benefit those who have or want such memberships by making them cheaper for the user.
(Obviously need to put some restrictions on it to prevent private clubs finding loopholes to taking advantage)
It might draw in more people signing up. (when I looked at a local membership with mine for swimming I decided not to join as being a single household I didn’t benefit from joint/family membership discounts & the frequency I was going it was questionable if membership was cheaper. Result I didn’t take membership, pay as you go only & then didn’t worry about missing weeks as I hadn’t paid for them…
cliffords said:
Perhaps we could add in race or sexual orientation to include another level of discrimination.
A health service aimed at fit people who need less healthcare.
How do you come up with such utter nonsense?
I basically think like this. I also wondered who would make the rules and decide. Then I realised it would all be done by AI so there would be nobody to argue with if the decision wasn't acceptable to the person on the end of it. A health service aimed at fit people who need less healthcare.
How do you come up with such utter nonsense?
Here's a progrramme about AI and US healthcare.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002r9c3/ai-...
It includes stuff about a murder of a US healthcare company boss that got in the news .
king arthur said:
Why should we all pay for the health care of people who don't give a st about their own health but expect the NHS to save them?
Because it's good for society. Much like unemployment benefits. You might not like paying either, but without them you'd see a lot more crime from people trying to survive.t about their own health but expect the NHS to save them?I'd wager a kindness-based approach (not the same as being soft) would be far more successful long term
Sporky said:
Because it's good for society. Much like unemployment benefits. You might not like paying either, but without them you'd see a lot more crime from people trying to survive.
I'd wager a kindness-based approach (not the same as being soft) would be far more successful long term
Up to a point yes, but that fails to take into account human nature which is that if you give someone something for free, they end up taking it for granted and eventually expect more. There need to be limits on kindness freely given.I'd wager a kindness-based approach (not the same as being soft) would be far more successful long term
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff