Are the benefit cuts a prelude to private insurance for sickness and disability? It’s a terrifyingly plausible thought – all the more horrific because Labour is pushing through the policy.

Nobody has suggested that people with long-term illnesses and/or disabilities should take out insurance against losing benefit – yet. But it is a possibility we should consider – and prepare against.

Is it likely?

Well, the shift away from state support for disabled people could indeed open the door for a private insurance market, though whether this is an intended outcome or an inevitable consequence is something worth analysing.

If the state withdraws or weakens social security for disabled people, individuals would be left with fewer options for financial stability. This creates a gap in provision, which the private sector can then step in to fill—if there’s a profit motive and people are willing (or forced) to pay for it.

This could mean the rise of private disability insurance (to replace lost state benefits); private health insurance (if NHS services for disabled people become harder to access); and/or employer-based disability coverage (where only those in work get support).

While there is no outright declaration from the government saying, “We want to push disabled people into private insurance,” there are patterns of policy decisions that suggest a calculated retreat from state support—which could, intentionally or not, create conditions for private-sector involvement.

Key indicators include cuts to disability benefits (PIP reassessments, stricter Work Capability Assessments, cuts to social care); narratives around “dependency”—governments have repeatedly pushed rhetoric that social security should be about “helping people into work” rather than long-term support; and the privatisation of other welfare-related services, such as private firms assessing disability claims (Atos, Capita, Maximus).

There is also a clear trend of shifting responsibility away from the state – to charities, employers, or individuals themselves.

Private insurance could be a next step, but the market may not even want to take it unless there are government incentives to make it viable.

For private disability insurance to become widespread, the government would need to make state benefits insufficient or unreliable—by reducing eligibility, delaying payments, and increasing barriers to support; promote private alternatives—through subsidies, tax breaks, or incentives for employers to offer disability coverage; and encourage public acceptance—by shifting the narrative from “state responsibility” to “personal responsibility” or “choice.”

Some of this is already happening in other sectors. For example:

• The social care funding crisis has led to more reliance on private care homes.
• NHS waiting lists are pushing more people into private healthcare.
• A previous government replaced Disability Living Allowance (DLA) with PIP, making access harder.

If a similar pattern continues, private disability insurance could emerge as a “solution”, even though it fundamentally undermines the principles of the welfare state.

But this approach is hugely problematic in the UK, for practical reasons:

• Private insurance is profit-driven. Many disabled people may not be able to afford private insurance, as disability is already linked to higher living costs and lower employment rates, so the most vulnerable could be excluded or overcharged; and
• Insurers might not cover high-risk individuals, as is common in the US, where insurers avoid people with pre-existing conditions.

There are ideological issues also – for example:

• People pay taxes for a reason, and the public expects the state to provide. Social security is a universal safety net, not an optional service; and
• It undermines the NHS and welfare state: the more private options exist, the easier it is for governments to justify further state withdrawal.

At the moment, while some in government or industry may see private insurance as a future model, the UK’s public overwhelmingly supports state-funded welfare.

The bigger risk right now is not a direct push for private insurance, but a slow erosion of state support, leading people to see private solutions as “inevitable”.

That is why it’s important to keep highlighting these policy shifts and their consequences.

---

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (bottom right of the home page). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

5) Follow Vox Political writer Mike Sivier on BlueSky

6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical

7) Feel free to comment!

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Cruel Britannia is available
in either print or eBook format here:

The Livingstone Presumption is available
in either print or eBook format here:

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here: