That said, few people will pay nothing - what they won't be paying if they live off share return (be it dividends or capital gains) is national insurance. I'm assuming that's what the person you replied to meant.
However that means nothing in terms of NHS funding any more, as NI just goes into the general treasury fund in practice.
It's become part of a convenient fiction about UK tax rates, given that most people are unaware of the way NI is structured. In effect the "20%" marginal tax band is roughly 32% marginal when you factor in NI, and the "40%" marginal tax band is really 42%, and the 45% band is effectively 47%.
The 20/40/45 looks a lot less progressive when it's actually about 32/42/47 (even less so when you factor in the many tax breaks those of us on the higher or additional rate can afford to take advantage of that lower earners can't)
It's equal for everyone regardless of your income and that's awesome as far as I'm concerned. Some others, not so much, particularly those who think that they shouldn't pay for someone else's treatment.
Are you familiar with the term 'postcode lottery'?
And what impacts which postcodes you can live in? Your income.
The postcode lottery doesn't exist unless you're dragged into an A&E.
Great! Everyone can afford the time and expense of travelling far away to a better GP... oh no wait that also depends on income.
You think I actually go and see the GP? No they call me instead and talk any problems through. I haven't been to a GP for about 10 years and have had a few appointments and referrals.
As for the transport costs, for referred appointments that's covered under HTCS if you can't afford to travel.
Good for you? What about people who do need to regularly go and see their GP?
> As for the transport costs, for referred appointments that's covered under HTCS if you can't afford to travel.
What about those GP visits some people less fortunate than yourself need?
And HTCS is for extremely low-income people. It doesn't cover normal working class people's extra costs.
People less fortunate than yourself struggle to get equality in the NHS. Sometimes they don't even have the knowledge and confidence that you do to use the systems you're talking about.
Fundamentally they shouldn't be required, rather than fortunate people saying 'I'm alright Jack'.
Though I think we agree it'd be much better if they didn't need to.
If you live within the GP catchment area, and their list is open, they must register you and there are very limited reasons why they can decline that registration. GPs must offer certain services to this group of patients, including home visits if needed and an out of hours service (although that's often contracted out).
If you live outside the catchment area they have a choice. They can either:
register you and provide full service, or
register you but not provide out of hours or home visits, or
not register you.
Full details are in the Primary Medical Care Policy and Guidance Manual (PGM): https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/primary-medical-care-...
One of the big problems is that "choice" is much more expensive for some people than others; this means that while I might be able to take a day off an visit a hospital a couple of hours away, it's much harder for someone who does't have access to transport, healthcare, funds or whatever else is required. So that system ends up offering choice only to people who can afford it, and you end up shuffling the poor people off to the less effective local healthcare facilities and your postcode lottery is back.
It is not free like a free buffet.
But if you have a need, and a doctor/nurse agrees, then you get the treatment at no cost/free.