Cambelbynum’s blog. it’s time to read about term life crime insurance policy.
September 30, 2007
A tax-funded NHS, free at the point of use, is unsustainable, one of Britain’s most senior doctors has said.
Bernie Ribeiro, the new president of the Royal College of Surgeons, said patients should be forced to pay part of the cost of treatment.
They would take out insurance to cover that, he told the Daily Telegraph.
But Unison, the UK’s largest health union, said the public was “rightly proud” of the existing NHS structure and would object to such changes.
The social insurance system suggested by Mr Ribeiro would be similar to those in France and Germany.
Means-tested
“We will have to look hard at an alternative system,” he told the Telegraph.
“If we are to provide healthcare free at the point of need all the time for patients, then I don’t think that’s achievable in the present structure.”
Mr Ribeiro argued that the rising cost of technology and medical staff would make a tax-funded NHS unsustainable in the medium term.
He said: “The working population is reasonably well paid, we could afford our workers to make an identifiable contribution towards healthcare - not one hidden in national insurance and taxation.”
But contributions would be means-tested, with the poorest people required to pay nothing at all, he said.
He said the government needed to make some tough choices about what should be available on the NHS.
“I would prefer to say we will give you the best emergency care possible, but you may not get all the elective work you want done on the state,” he said.
The government’s position was outlined by Chancellor Gordon Brown in 2002, who said a tax-funded NHS was “demonstrably the modern rational choice”.
“Unlike systems of charging, it does not charge people for the misfortune of being sick,” he said.
Public pride
Unison strongly criticised Mr Ribeiro’s ideas, saying one of the founding principles of the National Health Service - free treatment for all at point of delivery - should be maintained.
“The NHS is something the public is rightly proud of and I think any attempt to make people pay for their treatment would cause a public outcry,” a spokeswoman said.
Unison said the money the government had put into the NHS was starting to show improvements, and questioned the use of the private sector in the NHS - ” that money should be going into building up the NHS.”
The NHS Confederation, which represents health service managers, said it was an “inescapable fact” that health costs across the world were rising faster than people’s willingness to pay.
Policy director Nigel Edwards: “If healthcare is not sustainable by tax, there’s no reason it would be sustainable by social insurance.
“The basis for social insurance is directly from people’s incomes and is usually compulsory - that sounds to me like a tax.”
Shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley said it was not necessary to abandon the concept of a tax-funded NHS, but reform was needed.
“The NHS requires not only taxpayers’ resources but also reforms that bring patient choice, GP fund holding and competition amongst healthcare providers.”
Liberal Democrat health spokeswoman Julia Goldsworthy said that while it was important to explore new methods of funding for the NHS, “we must ensure that healthcare is provided on the basis of need and not the ability to pay”.
Originaly from Source
September 29, 2007
Hundreds of thousands of people have been wrongly told they have a tax records gap that may cut their pension.
The error was caused by a glitch in the Revenue and Customs’ tax system used by the UK’s largest employers.
A Revenue spokesman said it did not know how many of the 4.7m notices suggesting people pay 371 had been sent out in error.
Payroll expert Karen Thomson says the total affected could be 700,000, including many teachers and nurses.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Money Box programme she said: “On average the Revenue produces four million of these notices a year.
“They have confirmed to us that this year 4.7m will go out to the end of January, so the difference, 700,000 notices, could be incorrect.”
The Revenue challenged this methodology because “there are so many variables” but would not offer an alternative nor confirm or deny that figure.
But Money Box has evidence that the problem is widespread.
The programme has been contacted by teachers, doctors, other NHS workers, librarians, people who work at Gatwick, for EDF Energy, for Boots the chemist - even someone who works for HM Revenue & Customs.
And if one person in the company gets the notice, the rest are likely to as well.
Angry workers
Susan Millington, payroll manager at Tameside Borough Council in Manchester which employs 11,000 people, said: “We have had well over a thousand calls. People are very cross.
“We were told by the Revenue they were aware of the error but they can’t do anything to stop it. I just couldn’t believe it.”
 |
I am really shocked, amazed, it’s really worrying
Keith Parry, council worker
|
Keith Parry works for Tameside. He said all his colleagues had received the letter which suggests they pay 371 to “make up the shortfall and protect your entitlement to basic State Pension”.
He rang the helpline and spoke to a Revenue official who “immediately said that it was entirely caused by the Revenue, some sort of computer error and said some two and half million people were involved”.
“I am really shocked, amazed, it’s really worrying,” he said.
A Revenue spokesman denied that figure was correct and said it was working through the large employers affected and will eventually be sending letters to all those who have received the notice in error.
The problem began after the Revenue told all employers with more than 250 staff to file their 2004/05 pay returns electronically.
The Revenue’s computers could not cope, dropped information and missed National Insurance contributions.
Another computer then sent out letters informing individuals they had a gap.
Karen Thomson says anyone who has been in work for the whole of 2004/05 should not pay until the position has been clarified.
If there is a shortfall, they have until 5 April 2011 to pay the extra contributions. The letters have a helpline number for those who are concerned.
BBC Radio 4’s Money Box will be broadcast on Saturday, 16 December at 1204 GMT and Sunday, 17 December at 2102 GMT.
Originaly from Source
September 28, 2007
Tony Blair has urged voters to recognise how massive investment in the NHS is helping millions of patients across the country.
He made the pitch from the new 422m University College Hospital in London, and called on electors to look further than negative newspaper headlines.
Investment and reform was creating “an NHS for today’s world”, he said.
He was touring new health facilities as part of Labour’s campaign for the 10 June European and local elections.
The PM will hope his comments counter Tory claims that much of the extra National Insurance cash used to improve public services has been wasted.
But shadow health secretary Tim Yeo said: “The amazing work performed in the NHS each day happens despite this government, not because of it.”
Mr Blair met doctors, nurses and administrators during his visit to the state-of-the art UCH building, which was funded under the government’s controversial private finance initiative.
It opens next April and will include the largest cancer centre inside a general hospital in the UK.
‘Genuine improvements’
“I want to say to the public this is not a one off - this is what is happening in every single part of our country today,” said Mr Blair.
“It is when we have a strong economy that we can get the money into our public services and that we get the investment we need.
The prime minister conceded that on a regular basis stories are published about poor treatment in the NHS.
But he insisted: “I don’t suppose there is any system in the world that could treat one million people in 36 hours and things not go wrong.
“That happens in our healthcare system - it happens in every healthcare system in the world.”
Cancer scans
Mr Blair said the millions of people using NHS facilities were being treated quickly, seeing “genuine improvements”, “and realising that underneath the headlines, the NHS is being reborn for today’s world”.
He said additional staff and equipment had led to a 10% increase in diagnostic scans for cancer patients.
Some 250,000 more scans will be conducted each year from this summer, his aides said.
They claimed people with acute leukaemia, children suffering from cancer and an overwhelming majority of patients with testicular and breast cancer were already receiving treatment within a month of being referred by a GP.
Since 1997, the number of 750,000 MRI scanners has more than doubled from 110 to 223, while numbers of 450,000 CT
scanners have increased from 200 to 330.
An additional 1,000
radiologists have been recruited and university training places for the
specialism have doubled.
But Mr Yeo said while patients may be referred for cancer treatment within two weeks “they still face delays before diagnosis and treatment”.
“The announcement to increase the number of cancer scans is therefore long overdue - the main reason for the delays is a shortage in skilled staff,” he said.
“Labour has let down too many patients by failing to get a grip on this - vacancy rates for diagnostic radiographers has increased by 3.6% in 2000 to 6.1% in 2003.”
Originaly from Source
September 27, 2007
On the environment he said carbon emissions were up and green taxes as a proportion of overall taxation were down since 1997.
And while the chancellor had been criticising Tory policy all year, he had ended up “conceding what we have said all along”, said Mr Cameron.
“You can increase spending and you can cut taxes - yes, you can share the proceeds of growth.”
He made several references to comments by Lord Turnbull, the former head of the civil service, who described Mr Brown’s management style as operating with “Stalinist ruthlessness”.
He said the Labour Party were “just realising their next leader has the tendencies of Stalin and the poll ratings of Michael Foot”.
But he added: “Let me tell you what your real problem is, it is not that you are a Stalinist who holds all your colleagues in contempt - although I have to say that probably doesn’t help - it is that you have wasted money on an industrial scale.”
Originaly from Source
September 26, 2007
Gary Hull, an employment consultant from PricewaterhouseCoopers, says a rise in the uptake of the scheme will mean a higher cost to the Exchequer, but companies need ‘clarity’ on how they can use it.
“One of the things that we are all looking for is some clarity around the operation of the scheme so that employers understand what the Inland Revenue are prepared to accept, and employers understand what is not acceptable,” he told the programme.
The government’s options include officially opening or closing the scheme to all industries, or making it exclusive to the 300,000 workers in the construction sector at present.
Originaly from Source
September 25, 2007
The government should pay an extra 2bn a year to company pension schemes that have opted out of the state second pension, an actuary firm has said.
Watson Wyatt said the rebate offered to firms for contracting out should rise in 2007 by as much as 50%.
It claims the need for higher rebates is the result of inadequate investment returns and of people living longer.
According to official figures, the government paid out 3.1bn to company schemes and their members in 2004/05.
‘Inadequate payments’
The system of reduced National Insurance Payments for company schemes and their members was first devised in 1978 by the then Labour government.
It was introduced in parallel with a top-up pension scheme called the State Earnings Related Pensions Scheme (SERPS).
This has since been renamed the state second pension (S2P).
The idea was that people would be better off in the long term if they relied less on state provision and more on the investment returns that underpin the income from personal and company pensions.
According to Watson Wyatt, the value of the reduced NI payments for companies and their staff is simply inadequate to compensate for no longer being in S2P.
“The main reason that the current rebates are inadequate is that they assume that pension schemes can earn a higher investment return than can be guaranteed,” said Nigel Bodie, a senior consultant at Watson Wyatt.
“In addition we know that people are expected to live several years longer once they retire.”
Personal responsibility
The Conservative government expanded the concept of NI rebates in 1988 and let employees who were not in a company pension scheme also take rebates from their NI contributions if they then invested the money in a personal pension.
The government thought it would be a good idea if more people took direct responsibility for their pension provision instead of relying on what would always be a rather meagre level of state benefit.
Since then the idea has come under considerable criticism.
Earlier this month the Financial Services Authority concluded that many people who have contracted out of the S2P in favour of their personal pension would lose money as a result.
The Government’s actuary department will soon be consulting on the level of rebates which should apply to company schemes and individuals who contract out between 2007 and 2012.
Originaly from Source
September 24, 2007
The Conservatives have outlined plans to make the tax system simpler for small businesses.
Shadow Chancellor George Osborne said VAT, income tax and National Insurance were too complex and create too much paperwork for businesses.
The Tories have asked accountancy firm Grant Thornton to look at aligning the administration of NI and income tax.
But he was accused by the government of offering an unfunded “wish list of tax cuts” to the party’s right-wing.
‘Needless complexity’
Mr Osborne told an audience of businesspeople in London the Conservatives would try to reduce the tax burden on small businesses, in return for them encouraging more flexible working.
Raising NI and income tax contributions using different systems, and over different periods, was causing “needless complexity and administrative difficulties”, he said.
 |
Streamlining the Byzantine intricacies of VAT administration will make a real difference to small businesses all over the country
|
The Conservatives are looking at aligning the charge period to ease the “regulatory burden”.
Grant Thornton will also review the documentation, information and administration required for VAT.
“Streamlining the Byzantine intricacies of VAT administration will make a real difference to small businesses all over the country,” he said.
‘Come clean’
He also questioned the value of tax relief on investment announced in the last Budget, saying some companies would not be eligible, while others would need to hire expensive tax advisers to make claims.
“The Conservative Party will continue to oppose the chancellor’s latest tax rise for small businesses. We are fighting this measure every step of the way in Parliament,” he said.
But Chief Secretary to the Treasury Stephen Timms said Mr Osborne should “come clean” about his plans and spell out how he plans to pay for his pledges.
He added: “After caving in on grammar schools, David Cameron and George Osborne are now promising the Tory right a wish-list of tax cuts - without any idea how to fund them.
“If they ever got the chance to implement these uncosted, up-front tax pledges, the result would be a return to boom and bust in our economy.”
Originaly from Source
September 23, 2007
The Revenue is trying to overturn a landmark court victory which would have cut the tax bills for an estimated 30,000 couples.
The announcement, made late on Friday night, will be a blow to family businesses where one partner does most of the work but the other is paid dividends from the company.
In December, the Court of Appeal ruled couples were free to make these financial arrangements which can cut their tax bill by thousands of pounds a year.
The test case was brought against Geoff and Diana Jones of Arctic Systems, who paid themselves salaries of 7,000 and 4,000, taking the remaining 60,000 of their company’s profits as dividends.
The Revenue had tried to claw back the thousands of pounds in tax and National Insurance they saved by charging Mrs Jones the same higher rate of tax as her husband.
But the court ruled in December that the Revenue could not do that and the judges refused the Revenue leave to appeal against their decision.
Sudden dilemma
However, now the Revenue has said it will petition the House of Lords directly to seek leave to appeal.
If it succeeds, and then wins the appeal, it could cost the Mr and Mrs Jones and thousands of couples in the same position thousands of pounds a year.
With the deadline for completing self-assessment tax returns just two weeks away, the Revenue’s move gives all such couples a dilemma.
Do they follow the law as now declared by the Court of Appeal or wait to see what happens with the House of Lords?
John Whiting of PricewaterhouseCoopers told BBC Radio 4’s Money Box programme that they should follow the recent court ruling.
“The best advice is to go by the Court of Appeal judgement. That is the law of the land.
“But make a note to that effect in the return and dare I say it, keep a bit of money aside, just in case the Revenue is finally successful.
“But it could be a little while before it is finally sorted.”
BBC Radio 4’s Money Box was broadcast on Saturday, 14 January, 2006, at 1204 GMT.
The programme will be repeated on Sunday, 15 January, 2006, at 2102 GMT
Originaly from Source
September 22, 2007
Pensions might seem a long way off when you haven’t even started work but things have changed.
People have got used to the idea that when they retire they will be live on a decent pension, but we’re all living longer so pensions cost lots more.
Just think…
How much longer can you expect to live if you are a boy or a girl born in 2004 compared with 1994?
How does life expectancy for girls compare with boys?
Female life expectancy shows a similar pattern
|
Why do pensions cost more if people live longer?
Why do you think pensions have hit the headlines recently?
Where do pensions come from?
Most people get a pension from:
- their employer because they have contributed to the pension scheme
- the state if they have paid enough National Insurance.
Both employees and the government have started worrying about how they will pay the pension bill.
Most businesses have changed the way they pay pensions so people don’t get as much when they retire.
Lots of people work for themselves and have to make private arrangements by paying into their own pension fund.
Others want to make sure they have a comfortable retirement and set up their own private pension scheme to top up whatever else they receive.
The government is still trying to work out what to do. There are all sorts of suggestions including making people work until 67 before they get a pension from the state. The main idea is to encourage people to look after themselves.
Just think…
What are the alternative ways of receiving a pension?
What has changed in recent years?
Who pays for pensions?
When the state pays people’s pension - we are all paying for it. It comes out of taxes.
- When you buy almost anything you pay Value Added Tax.
- If you are working you pay Income Tax.
- If you buy cigarettes or alcohol you pay Excise duty.
- If you buy a house you pay Stamp duty.
If pensions cost more, we pay more taxes. Governments worry about increasing taxes because people might not vote for them at the next election. It’s all a challenge - and voters seem to want the impossible. They want good pensions from the government - as well as all sorts of other things like good schools and health care - but they don’t want to pay more in taxes. It doesn’t add up!
Just think…
Why does the government want to limit the amount it pays out in pensions?
Why do voters not want taxes to go up?
Why is this impossible if they want the government to pay for lots of high quality services?
Pensions - and you…
It may seem a long way off - but it’s important to know how to look after yourself.
There have been big changes and there will be more.
People often used to go to work for one business or organisation when they left school and stayed there all their lives - so it was quite straightforward. Today people change jobs quite often so have more responsibility for making sure they have enough to live on when they retire.
Prices tend to rise. It’s called inflation. A pension that looks good today might not be worth much if prices have gone up lots so it’s important to build up a pension that will grow as you grow older.
Just think…
When you get a job, what questions will you ask about the pension scheme?
Why is important to think about your pension as soon as you start work?
Originaly from Source
September 21, 2007
Science Daily — Health plans seldom require screening for substance abuse and mental health in primary care even though it can improve detection, according to a new Brandeis University study published in the July issue of the Journal of General Internal Medicine. This may be a missed opportunity to help people with mental illness or substance abuse problems, only a fraction of whom currently receive treatment.
Lead author Constance Horgan, director of the Institute for Behavioral Health at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis, says that requiring health plans to screen patients for mental health and substance abuse problems could help identify more people with behavioral health conditions, the first step toward effective treatment.
Horgan and her colleagues recommend that patients be routinely screened in primary care settings for several reasons. First, primary care physicians have contact with the greatest number of patients. In 2001, sixty-eight percent of adults reported an appointment with a primary care doctor within the last year. Second, there are many effective tools for screening available. Third, screening, when combined with appropriate treatment, has proven to help patients.
"There is a growing emphasis on the role of primary care doctors in addressing behavioral health problems, and screening for mental health issues and substance abuse is one important strategy that physicians can use to identify problems and get patients into treatment," says Horgan.
Despite these reasons, most health plans do not require primary care physicians to screen for mental health or substance use problems. By 2003, only thirty-four percent of health insurance products had any behavioral health screening requirements, according to the national Brandeis study of private health plans. Horgan and her colleagues believe that requiring health plans to screen for behavioral health conditions will help close this gap.
"I think it’s time we made screening for behavioral health problems as routine as it is for cancer and other major illnesses," says Horgan. "Detection is where treatment really starts."
The study was funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Brandeis University. (more̷ 
