Insurers 'could provide welfare'

mattheman · 27 Jul 2009 at 12:44

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8170265.stm

Insurers rather than the government could provide benefits such as sick leave, says a report into the industry.

Setting out a possible scenario for 2020, the report said a 5% shift in the £340bn welfare state burden could save the government £17bn a year.

But consumers would need to take out insurance against sickness and job loss as a result.

The Insurance Industry Working Group was set up in October last year, comprising bosses of major firms

.
here we go the start.

DampCat · 27 Jul 2009 at 12:47

the start of what?

malfunkshun · 27 Jul 2009 at 12:48

Already the case for me

Also for a lot of people I know that can't/won't rely on state benefits. I am more than happy to pay £9/month to cover my income in the event of accident or illness at it's full level rather than £60odd (?) a week state benefit.

DreadNiK · 27 Jul 2009 at 12:48

go libertarianism

mike5678 · 27 Jul 2009 at 12:49

Hopefully the beginning of the end of the welfare state.

mattheman · 27 Jul 2009 at 12:51

malfunkshun said:
Already the case for me Also for a lot of people I know that can't/won't rely on state benefits. I am more than happy to pay £9/month to cover my income in the event of accident or illness at it's full level rather than £60odd (?) a week state benefit.

The chances of getting that are slim so many loop holes for insurance firms to get out of.

DampCat · 27 Jul 2009 at 12:51

What do you mean of getting it? It already exists.

mattheman · 27 Jul 2009 at 12:52

mike5678 said:
Hopefully the beginning of the end of the welfare state.

you really have no idea about how important the welfare state is to this country.

mattheman · 27 Jul 2009 at 12:52

DampCat said:
What do you mean of getting it? It already exists.

Getting paid if something happens.

malfunkshun · 27 Jul 2009 at 12:53

mattheman said:
The chances of getting that are slim so many loop holes for insurance firms to get out of.

Not the case, I have been a member of this scheme for 12 years, across three different employers. I have had the misfortune to need to claim it once, for 11 months, after an accident with no issues to report. There are, of course the usual exemptions like certain back problems and some mental issues but other than that it is pretty transparent.

semi-pro waster · 27 Jul 2009 at 12:56

If the burden shifts then will there be a commensurate shift in the tax burden for those who 'opt' out? If not then the benefits of insuring will have to be more attractive than what could be received under the current system for it to be appealing.

This might well fit better with Dolph's ideal of how benefits should be administered although that it should be done by a Labour government is something a little odd.

Strife212 · 27 Jul 2009 at 12:58

My friends dad is currently on sick pay paid for by an insurer.

stokecity_m · 27 Jul 2009 at 12:59

i'm happy to pay for insurance - so long as i don't have to pay national insurance too.

DampCat · 27 Jul 2009 at 13:02

I'd pay for welfare insurance through a company i trust (and contrary to popular beliefs, a lot of insurers are very nice indeed) rather than commit an assload of my pay each month to everyone elses claims which i never see any of.

malfunkshun · 27 Jul 2009 at 13:02

semi-pro, ingoring my levels (I pay £9 for cover of £1200 which is, now, about 75% below average but the scheme is dissolved after this year so my rate will increase a lot)
I think that the average is about £20 for £900 at my age (36). It is worth noting that payments received under these policies are tax free

mattheman · 27 Jul 2009 at 13:03

stokecity_m said:
i'm happy to pay for insurance - so long as i don't have to pay national insurance too.

Oh you'll pay that aswell.

stokecity_m · 27 Jul 2009 at 13:05

mattheman said:
Oh you'll pay that aswell.

indeed - that's why people wont accept it.

mattheman · 27 Jul 2009 at 13:05

semi-pro waster said:
If the burden shifts then will there be a commensurate shift in the tax burden for those who 'opt' out? If not then the benefits of insuring will have to be more attractive than what could be received under the current system for it to be appealing.

This might well fit better with Dolph's ideal of how benefits should be administered although that it should be done by a Labour government is something a little odd.

So what happens if the company goes bust?

mattheman · 27 Jul 2009 at 13:07

malfunkshun said:
Not the case, I have been a member of this scheme for 12 years, across three different employers. I have had the misfortune to need to claim it once, for 11 months, after an accident with no issues to report. There are, of course the usual exemptions like certain back problems and some mental issues but other than that it is pretty transparent.

would the ypay you if it was illness that could last a life time?

malfunkshun · 27 Jul 2009 at 13:11

mattheman said:
would the ypay you if it was illness that could last a life time?

Nope, mine doesn't include permanent disability cover, but some policies do, but would only pay out if there was no prospect of you ever working again, which is slim tbh.