Prescription charges for the over sixties

growstuff

*If someone chooses not to work, they should (IMO) be charged a regular contribution - perhaps paid for by their partner, or out of whatever other funding allows them to afford not to work.

IMO it is not fair to have a system that compels someone on minimum wage to contribute when someone better off can just 'opt out' of paying tax, and 'opt in' to the NHS etc. Everyone should contribute unless they are unable to, in which case they should be treated exactly as though they have paid in.*

You're somewhat confused about this issue.

Sorry to rewind, but I've just seen this.

How so, growstuff?

I think that someone choosing not to work (who is able to) is free to do make that choice, but not free to expect others to subsidise that choice. If they do not contribute to the economy by working, they should only qualify for the benefits (in the general sense of the word) if they contribute in other ways. Just as you have to pay for house insurance if you want to claim if your house catches fire.

I believe that all adults should be treated as individuals for purposes of tax and benefits, but if people prefer to organise their affairs into households, that's up to them. The contribution of every adult in a household might be paid by one person, or come out of the individual's trust fund/whatever, but unless it is made, IMO they should not get the benefits that have been paid for by others, which is what I meant by people not being allowed to 'opt out' of taxation, but 'opt into' the rewards that are paid for by others.

Someone on minimum wage currently pays in, so is therefore subsidising someone who chooses not to work. IMO that is unfair.

If a person is unable to work, because of illness, caring for someone else who is ill, can't find work because unemployment is high, or other reasons that don't spring immediately to mind, then they should, IMO, be covered by everyone else.

From each according to ability, to each according to need.

What is confused about that?

It does make sense for people who haven't reached pension age to carry on paying for prescriptions. But exceptions should be made for people who have to retire early because of illness. They will already be facing extra expenses because of illness and possibly having to pay for multiple prescriptions would be a nightmare.

I was not in favour of free prescriptions in Scotland and still am against it. A nominal charge of, say, £1 per item would make people consider whether or not they really needed the item. Far too much medicine lies unused in bathroom cupboards only to be thrown out eventually.

I'm one of those fifties women who expected my pension at 60 and was not informed I would have to wait until I was 66 (in January). I care ft for my husband who is bedridden and as soon as I reached 66 my carers allowance stopped, my ESA stopped and his pension credit stopped because we are a couple of pounds over the threshold. Just pay me the six years you owe me and I will happily pay for my own prescriptions.

I think putting prices on prescriptions, and on any treatments given, would be a massive help to the nhs Not so you actually pay for it but so you can see how much it actually costs. Then you’d see that £9 per item is a bargain.

Doodledog People who choose not to work for whatever reason (maybe because they live with somebody who can afford to support them) do still pay for prescriptions. You appear to think they don't. What other benefits do you think they receive? Apologies if I've misunderstood.

Polarbear2

I think putting prices on prescriptions, and on any treatments given, would be a massive help to the nhs Not so you actually pay for it but so you can see how much it actually costs. Then you’d see that £9 per item is a bargain.

Not necessarily. Most of the prescription drugs I take cost the NHS considerably less than £9 for a month's supply.

Esspee

I was not in favour of free prescriptions in Scotland and still am against it. A nominal charge of, say, £1 per item would make people consider whether or not they really needed the item. Far too much medicine lies unused in bathroom cupboards only to be thrown out eventually.

I suspect £1 per item would cost more in paperwork and administration.

Casdon

*mokryna*, as requested, just to confirm that Wales implements the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance when making decisions about non standard prescription medicines, exactly the same as the other UK nations. Each nation has its own National clinical decision making body for new and trial medicines, so sometimes Wales will make a decision before, and sometimes after the English government about a specific medicine, the same applies to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Thank you. It is that I remember there was a scandal regarding people from Wales renting flats in England, to have an English address, so that they could get life saving treatment paid by the English, which was refused because of the high price in Wales .

growstuff

Polarbear2

I think putting prices on prescriptions, and on any treatments given, would be a massive help to the nhs Not so you actually pay for it but so you can see how much it actually costs. Then you’d see that £9 per item is a bargain.

Not necessarily. Most of the prescription drugs I take cost the NHS considerably less than £9 for a month's supply.

Fair comment. But many items do cost more. I speak from a little experience. Back in the day a good friend worked in the prescription pricing bureau. One day a glitch meant all that day’s prescriptions went out with the prices on. GPs and pharmacists in the area reported people bringing drugs back saying they had too many and didn’t need them. The prices had shocked them into realising what is perceived as ‘free’ isn’t free at all. ?‍♀️

Of course its not free. We pay for it through taxes.

What is the obsession with paying for prescriptions, really? Is it because they are tangible, so there is a perception that we have to pay for "things"? What else should we pay for? If someone visits the GP and gets told there's nothing to worry about, does that mean that we should all pay for doctors visits because some of them are unnecessary?

I took ill in the middle of the night last year and an ambulance was sent for. Thankfully, I didn't need to go in the ambulance, but should I have had to pay for it because it "wasn't necessary"?

The constant calls for people to pay for their prescriptions are, IMO, only because people think the system is being played and people are getting things they aren't entitled to. Well let's be clear; free paracetamol isn't what's driving the NHS into the ground, that's something else entirely.

It's all well and good for some here saying we should pay for our prescriptions even when we reach 60. But I for one would not be able to afford my tablets. I don't get my pension for 3 years. Having to pay for my tablets would sentence to bone racking pain, heart problems which could lead to heart attack and seizures that can last between 8-12 hours. So thank you for that.

I as I have said earlier in post don't get any benefits. Will only get basic state pension. I didn't ask to become ill at the age of 29. Went to bed a normal healthy woman and woke unable to control my limbs .

All those of you who are in favour of paying for your prescriptions I hope you never get seriously ill or have a loved one who does.

Even though I have been ill a long time. My husband and I brought our children up. I nursed him until he died in agony with cancer. Helped my mom look after my dad until he died. Looked after my mom for 10 years until she died plus helping my mother in law until she died.

I nearly died 4 years ago from jaundice.

I think once I reached 60 having my prescriptions for free is nothing . As I have saved the health care system thousands of pounds by looking after my relatives. Whilst being ill myself.

growstuff

Doodledog People who choose not to work for whatever reason (maybe because they live with somebody who can afford to support them) do still pay for prescriptions. You appear to think they don't. What other benefits do you think they receive? Apologies if I've misunderstood.

growstuff (Everyone else might want to skim past this post, as it is rehashing points that were made upthread - sorry.)

If you weren't trying to pick holes in whatever I say, you might first answer my question - what was contradictory about the points you brought up in your last post to me?

Secondly, you would know that my comments were in response to someone saying that all people who were working should pay for prescriptions, and I was simply asking what about those who don't. I didn't imply that I think that anyone under 60 would get free prescriptions unless they qualify for other reasons.

As always, you picked on one aspect of my reply, twisted it, and asked me to justify myself, which I did. You ignored the justification, and asked me to explain what you claimed to be a contradiction. I have done so. You are now ignoring that, and asking me to explain which 'other benefits' I think people who don't work receive.

I note that you don't say 'claim', which suggests that you know very well that (as I pointed out) I meant benefits in the general sense, as opposed to what Americans would call 'welfare'. I even listed some in my earlier post. The benefits of living in a first world country.

I simply posted (in response to your first question) what I think would be fair. It is my opinion, based on a generally held principle, that we would all have more if everyone who is able to do so contributed, and that it is the poor who do less well out of a system that takes money at source from those at work, but not from those who can afford not to.

Anticipating a reply like this from you, I even listed (as though it didn't go without saying) groups who should be exempt from paying, but as ever, you imply by your highlighting of 'choose' that I am in some sort of ivory tower, and am unaware that not everyone is able to contribute. Not true. I simply think that being 'supported' by another should mean having financial contributions paid by that other, or by some other means. Otherwise the rest of us pick up the tab. We are always being told that as a country 'we can't afford' x y and z (usually things that would make a big difference to those who have less, but who have no choice but to pay tax and NI). Maybe if those who have enough to live on without working were also expected to contribute there would be more to go around, and society would be fairer.

It's not a political manifesto that I need to defend - it's just a point of view. I am not a politician. I am contributing to a chat about prescription charges and 'welfare' in general, and all I did in the first place was ask (as a small part of a longer post) why a poster thought that all those in work should pay for prescriptions even if they are over 60, and whether the poster thought that this should apply to those who were not working.

It is so wearing when every time I post about anything to do with benefits, pensions and contributions you ignore or deflect what I am saying, and ask me to defend things I haven't said. You disagree with my point of view. Fair enough. But why not say why you disagree, so we can debate that, instead of posting false equivalences about what I 'seem to think'?

Alegrias1

^Maybe you need to raise your taxes then your Education is not doing too good.^

Too well.

?

When you get your independence which I hope is very soon, then we will see how you manage your Health and Education systems. Easy to watch others make mistakes and then tweak your own policies we are all better with hindsight.
As for correcting English Grammar, I think it is a Scottish pass time, having been on the end of it on numerous occasions, so rude and in your face.

Yes, that's right. Our great education system helps us know how to speak the language of our feudal overlords.

I wonder why people have to correct your grammar so often?

Pastime, not pass time Yammy. And I’m English.

Alegrias1

Yes, that's right. Our great education system helps us know how to speak the language of our feudal overlords.

I wonder why people have to correct your grammar so often?

My grammar has to be corrected because I am dyslexic and no amount of teaching, tutoring or lecturing can rectify it as you probably know. Many have tried including Scots teachers and friends.
As for feudal overlords, you were handed England on the death of Elizabeth the first, James the first chose to live in London, not Edinburgh, I wonder why?
Even Robert the Bruce played his cards on both sides of the border until he saw what his opportunities were. You could so easily have been the feudal overlords of England, but a succession of Stewarts mismanaged it.
If your Education system is so good why did the only Scots poet that is universally known use his own Dumfrieshire vernacular to write his poems?

Your last post was remarkably well-written for a dyslexic Yammy. I always thought dyslexia affected the spelling of words rather than the choice of them?

I will not comment again on your use of language. Perhaps you could reciprocate by not commenting on things for which you only have half an idea?

We were not "handed" England, James I & VI took on the English crown in 1603 because he was the first in line of succession, as the Tudor line had otherwise run out, and James himself was a direct descendant of Henry VII through both his mother and his father. He had been brought up in England by people who turned him against his mother and Scotland.

Robert the Bruce lived in the 13th/14th century. Contrary to what some people think, things have indeed moved on in Scotland since then. We have running water and everything now. He was of French descent, did you know? A warlord who hedged his bets, as warlords tend to do.

Finally our well known Scots poet. Who wrote in both Scots, which is a language of course, and in English. If he is the only one you know, try looking up Fergusson, Dunbar, Morgan, MacDairmid, Lochhead, Jackie Kay, Iain Crichton Smith, Alan Ramsay....

Back to prescriptions now?

Though I would just mention, if I may, that the name of the dynasty which followed the Tudors is correctly spelled ‘Stuart’. Alegrias may or may not wish to mention the spelling of a certain Scottish shire. We seem to have drifted a long way from prescription charges. I will return to Pedants’ Corner.

I'm sure I read somewhere that prescriptions are free for all ages in Wales and Scotland, paid for by England.

A lot of people over the age of 60 take several different medications and at £9 a pop that could work out quite expensive. One year ago, my 90 y.o. mum took one prescription drug, one year later she now has to take seven. Big difference.
A lot of 1950's women who have had to wait an extra 6 years for their pension have been plunged into poverty because of it, now will have to find the extra money if they have to pay for meds too.

Doodledog I don't try to pick holes in everything you write, but this thread is about prescription charges and you gave the impression that you though people who choose not to work don't pay for their prescriptions. They do. If I misunderstood you, I've already apologised.

PS. I'm well aware of your thoughts about benefits.

effalump

I'm sure I read somewhere that prescriptions are free for all ages in Wales and Scotland, paid for by England.

No, they're paid for out of the money Scotland and Wales are allowed through devolution.

effalump I'm not going to rise to the bait as I am busy atm. I will, however, check back later to see if you get your comeuppance.