On 07/02/2012 18:06, Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:56:43 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Surely that's what NI does? And without a private company making a
profit?

No, that's what NI was supposed to do. It also seems to make a loss for
the state (ie taxpayer)

So would you privatize it while making it compulsory?

That's how car insurance works, so I don't see why not.

The snag with
voluntary schemes is many will just take the risk it won't happen to them.

In which case if it *does* happen to them, they will have to make
alternative arrangements along the lines I have already mentioned.

There are no doubt a high proportion of people who will decide that
they do not *need* such insurance because they have sufficient family
and friends who could step in as caraer should it become necessary.

Thus pushing up the price of insurance for everyone else, as the risk is
not being spread among everyone, but only amongst those of higher risk.
Very soon, those with familial histories of problems would find
themselves priced out of buying any insurance. Those with insurance
would try not to go to the doctor at any point, in case something small
pushes up their premiums.

SteveW