crash2006 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8170265.stm But consumers would need to take out insurance against sickness and job loss as a result. The report suggested that the insurance sector had the capacity to play a much bigger role in providing benefits like jobseekers allowance and money for those on long-term sick leave. Taking on 5% of the burden from the government would save the Treasury billions of pounds, but would mark a fundamental shift in the welfare state, which is funded by taxation and National Insurance contributions. So is this what they have planned, same as everything else this government does it'll be more expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Another way to skim even more money from the populace and provide less cover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futurepaul Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8170265.stmSo is this what they have planned, same as everything else this government does it'll be more expensive. Privitise Profit and when things go wrong Nationalise debt This will create a greater wealth division between the insurable clash and the uninsurable class Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BoomBoomCrash Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Shouldn't that be 'Usurers could provide welfare' of course first the Usurers need to get themselves off of welfare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogs Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 They could call it "National Insurance" and for ease of collection give everyone a personalised number and then take it directly from your paycheque. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonkers Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 They could call it "National Insurance" and for ease of collection give everyone a personalised number and then take it directly from your paycheque. Except add 100 more clauses so you can never actually claim on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Shouldn't that be 'Usurers could provide welfare' of course first the Usurers need to get themselves off of welfare. Indeed. They are on the drip anyway so what's the difference - 1st hand unreliable and unfunded futures, or ones delivered through an intermediary who will take profits as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicestersq Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8170265.stmSo is this what they have planned, same as everything else this government does it'll be more expensive. Completely Crackers. You can get insurance now if you want, but it costs a lot. So will you get to pay less tax if you insure yourself privately? How will the Government make up for the shortfall as people opt out? Of course when the depression hits, and claims need to be paid all at once, the insurance company will get stuffed as everyone will know that it has to sell assets to pay up. It will go bust, of course, leaving the state to pay out anyway. Meanwhile, those shareholders who took the dividends and sold up just before the crash will be quids in. And lets not forget that welfare does force the government into using its automatic stabilisers (Bit of a tautology in that sentence). Increased government expenditure on welfare helps to bring the economy back out of recession. If that need to spend on welfare is taken away, the economy wont necessarily repair itself, according to Keynes at least. This is the latest mad idea from someone who should be leaving things like this as they are. This scheme creates no value, and simply transfers wealth from workers to insurers in the first instance, and then wealth from the same workers again to those who need welfare. I have a good idea, why dont we transfer wealth to workers. It might encourage people to work and create wealth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 The group was chaired by Chancellor Alistair Darling and Andrew Moss, the chief executive of Aviva. FFS!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Evil scum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 FFS!!! Well, labour did say pre-1997 that economic policy would no longer be decided over beer and sandwiches with the union leaders. Had they mentioned that instead it would be decided over caviar and champaign with a bunch of bankers who can't believe their luck, they might not have got as many votes.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crouch Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Another way to skim even more money from the populace and provide less cover. Yes, that's exactly how it will turn out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pindar Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I can see this idea working but I have moral objection to it all the time bankers get unlimited access to taxpayers' money in the form of bailouts. Shouldn't banking failure be catered for by the private sector too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 More last minute looting. Ultimately they'll want you to pledge your vital organs inm exchange for benefit payments, and when no one is looking, they'll push you under a bus and claim them. Course, the "free market" will get the blame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Less for more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Reminds me of the US health care system and look how that's turned out...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cells Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 good idea if you can opt out of the governments version. so if they increase the 0% rate to say £20k for everyone opting out then it would be good however as always they will keep the tax, and get you to pay for insurance on top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minos Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Evil scum. I quite like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) To top it all, my NI has just gone up. Feckers. If the insurance industry get involved, watch your NI contribs explode further! FFS, they'll want to make a reasonable profit innit. Hardly rocket science! Edited July 27, 2009 by gruffydd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bomberbrown Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 One question. How do you pay this insurance if you're already on the dole? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pindar Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 One question. How do you pay this insurance if you're already on the dole? The government would presumably make the contributions for you. I believe this is how the system works for healthcare in places like Germany. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 One question. How do you pay this insurance if you're already on the dole? You pledge your kidneys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 You pledge your kidneys. I looked at the thread and the direction it was going in, I saw your name next and I KNEW the respone was going to be like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledgehead Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Of course when the depression hits, and claims need to be paid all at once, the insurance company will get stuffed as everyone will know that it has to sell assets to pay up. It will go bust, of course, leaving the state to pay out anyway. Meanwhile, those shareholders who took the dividends and sold up just before the crash will be quids in. Well, my thoughts almost exactly except I would not blame the shareholders. Remember, they have to get their timing right or the pittance they've got from a few years divis will be wiped out. How do you figure bank shareholders have fared lately? Rather the winners will be the usual scum - frontline salespeople on bonuses and management with 'contracts'. Moreover it will be these lot that propel the industry to disaster by taking on too many clients at paper-thin profitability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.