Restore tax relief to people paying for their own health insurance
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
Sorry Purple but I'm still not sure I follow.
I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have public healthcare or education. Equally, I have no problem with private healthcare or education. I just don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise these private services.
There is no tax relief on health insurance premiums in the UK - why is position different here? I suspect it's because of (the State owned) VHI's historic monopoly.
I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have public healthcare or education. Equally, I have no problem with private healthcare or education. I just don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise these private services.
There is no tax relief on health insurance premiums in the UK - why is position different here? I suspect it's because of (the State owned) VHI's historic monopoly.
Last edited:
Private healthcare subsidises the public system; it treats people who would otherwise be treated in the public system. The same applies to private education although it's a much smaller sector. As long as the cost to the State of the tax relief is less than the cost they would have to incur without the private hospitals then what's the problem?
I am struggling to understand how my tax refund for my health insurance would be a burden to my fellow taxpayer. I get a refund of a portion of the tax I paid and use it for my health insurance, so i contribute less to the state ( in theory less to the public hospitals).
Then, when the time comes, I go to the private hospitals. I am using the public hospitals less, or not at all, so is it not fair that I get at least some of the tax money back?
With the way the system is now, a person that wants private hospitals is basically paying double, right? Taxes for the public ones ( which he wont use...), health insurance for the private one.
Similar thinking applies to private schools / private schools.
I suspect I am oversimplifying things but why are they so complicated in the first place? Everything the government gets involved into becomes more expensive, less effective and so so slow. Private schools / hospitals would become more effective and cheaper with the increased volume, or at least that's what free market theory tells us. State subsidised schools / hospitals are suppressing the private ones.
The less the government gets involved, the more tax money I get to keep to make my own choices, my own health insurance, private school, pension etc.
Then, the less pressure the government will be in to hand-hold us through everything, like we are unable to make our own life choices.
Then, when the time comes, I go to the private hospitals. I am using the public hospitals less, or not at all, so is it not fair that I get at least some of the tax money back?
With the way the system is now, a person that wants private hospitals is basically paying double, right? Taxes for the public ones ( which he wont use...), health insurance for the private one.
Similar thinking applies to private schools / private schools.
I suspect I am oversimplifying things but why are they so complicated in the first place? Everything the government gets involved into becomes more expensive, less effective and so so slow. Private schools / hospitals would become more effective and cheaper with the increased volume, or at least that's what free market theory tells us. State subsidised schools / hospitals are suppressing the private ones.
The less the government gets involved, the more tax money I get to keep to make my own choices, my own health insurance, private school, pension etc.
Then, the less pressure the government will be in to hand-hold us through everything, like we are unable to make our own life choices.
Ceist Beag
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,426
Surely arguments on political policy should be ideological in nature? I would hate to think that decisions made for a society are made on a purely practical basis Brendan. What you're asking for here is to give relief to a certain section of society, those who can afford health insurance, taking money out of the government coffers and thereby reducing the amount of money available for use in the health service available to those who cannot afford it, based on the argument that in the long run this will make more money available for the public health service as the number of people looking to avail of it will reduce as more move over to the private health service. That is a hard message to sell.
I don't disagree with Purple though that this might be the wrong discussion to have - the right discussion should be why it seems that we are spending more money every year on public health and getting less in return.
Well, unfortunately this happens pretty much everywhere the State gets involved...
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,079
No, I wouldn't.
The private schools are heavily subsidised through the provision of teaches and grants.
But by your reasoning, surely the teachers in the private schools should not be paid by the state?
I hate subsidies as well.
So either
1) Charge everyone the cost of their healthcare whether it's provided publicly or privately
or
2) If you are going to pay 100% of public healthcare, pay a subsidy of 50% for private healthcare.
Brendan
That's absolutely correct Brendan; I don't think that teachers in private schools should be paid by the State.
I believe in a universal healthcare and education system. Beyond that, well, people can pay for whatever they want - just don't ask me to subsidise it.
I fully appreciate that is not a popular opinion.
See, a universal healthcare and education system means everyone is obligated to subsidise it, through taxes.
If someone doesn't like it, he can go to the private ones. But he is still getting taxed for the operations on the public ones.
Is is 'being subsidised' if he just gets part of the taxes he paid back?