Older people with adequate pensions should ‘chip in’ to pay for the NHS

Sir, – People paying for operations are up by a third since the Covid pandemic, we read, with one fed-up 28-year-old borrowing to pay for her operation despite the fact she had been paying national insurance for 10 years. She added that such has been her experience with the NHS a refund of her contributions should be made.

I’m staggered to realise some still believe that such payments adequately fund our much-loved institution.

NI contributions merely supplement funding from the major source: general taxation.

With the young lady’s dilemma in mind, how do we fund future health care?

A separate tax to fund the

NHS has been suggested but others, such as Frank Field, a politician of intellectual stature, suggests building on the distinction the pubic make between tax and contributions.

A significantly higher proportion of voters support an increase in NI payments to swell the NHS budget, especially if the contributory base was made more progressive.

So the inclusion of pensioners’ incomes comes into consideration.

My view, if we go to the heart of one of the main causes of NHS expenditure, the elderly, is that they should “chip in” too.

There are many senior citizens, myself included, who benefit from adequate employment or personal pensions, assets such as property, and savings (the result in my case of enjoying with my late wife an inexpensive lifestyle) who could pay national insurance easily.

Such a plan will be met with stony silence by my peers, or the usual mantra “I’ve paid in all my working life and should be entitled to free care until I die.”

Closed minds. The same applies to bus passes, the heating allowance and TV licences.

It is unlikely my views will find favour with politicians. Few would relish suicide at the ballot box by supporting such radical ideas. There is no greater vote winner than the word “free.”

Ivan W. Reid, Laurencekirk.

INTELLECTUAL: Frank Field pointed out distinction between tax and contributions.