NHS cutting back on prescriptions?
Discussion
kiethton said:
Bust as somebody who will likely need this service whats better....£xxk of IVF now or the total cost of IVF annually for life courtesy of the NHS should the 50/50 chance conspire against us? (genetic condition)
Of course if covered on my Vitality of course that'll be the first port of call
Sorry I'm not sure I understand the question.Of course if covered on my Vitality of course that'll be the first port of call
Are you saying that, if you don't have IVF there's a 50:50 risk that any child you have may need permanent or long-term NHS care due to a genetic condition?
jjlynn27 said:
All this, the antibiotics, the IVF, the gluten free food, in the grand scheme of things are an irrelevance.
We have more people and they are living longer. It is a simple as that.
The cost of healthcare provision for a man who is 89 is three times as much as for someone who is 70.
It's nine times as for someone who is 50. 32% of hospital costs are spent for 1% of the population. As Trumpster would say, they are big, not so beautiful numbers.
The UK is near the top of every obesity table. Not only that this influences outcomes of procedures, but a quick google says that £4.2b is spent on obesity-related treatments. Add in
Saving 100m on IVF is a distraction.
Tackling the low hanging fruit is essential if we are to make a start reforming the thing. We have more people and they are living longer. It is a simple as that.
The cost of healthcare provision for a man who is 89 is three times as much as for someone who is 70.
It's nine times as for someone who is 50. 32% of hospital costs are spent for 1% of the population. As Trumpster would say, they are big, not so beautiful numbers.
The UK is near the top of every obesity table. Not only that this influences outcomes of procedures, but a quick google says that £4.2b is spent on obesity-related treatments. Add in
Saving 100m on IVF is a distraction.
That is not to say that the other items you note are not important to resolve, but they are orders of magnitude more difficult to resolve and convince people on. If we can't convince people that having IVF on the NHS is not a sensible use of funds then we are truly screwed in terms of being able to create a sensible system.
The NHS is WAY beyond it's original scope and the assumptions that created it have been proven to be flawed. A radical rethink is required.
Mr Will said:
No, the imbeciles are the ones that think that taxation is a complicated subject only they are clever enough to understand.
I'd much rather see a 5% increase in my national insurance payments than an equivalent decrease in NHS funding. I'm not the only one either.
This is a matter of political leaning. You think spending can be increased ad infinitum. sidicks and I think costs need controlling.I'd much rather see a 5% increase in my national insurance payments than an equivalent decrease in NHS funding. I'm not the only one either.
The reality is a balance of both is required, but as we are currently in deficit and massive debt, the weight of imbecility is against you at this moment in time.
When it comes to preferences, I would rather you paid all the costs of people wanting IVF on the NHS rather than my taxes picking up any of it
A 5% increase in NI won't even touch the sides of the items jjlynn27 notes, and that's even IF that sort of NI rise could be implemented - look at the moaning at the proposed Self Employed NI increases! I would much sooner proper critical analysis of what services are provided is done (not nice NICE papers) and the services be trimmed back to meet a sustainable budget.If a political party then wants to put a manifesto together that reintroduces those services but that taxes will rise to provide them, then let them do so. With the scale of tax rise needed I guarantee that they will either not get elected or this country will go bankrupt quickly.
Countdown said:
Mr Will said:
No, the imbeciles are the ones that think that taxation is a complicated subject only they are clever enough to understand.
I'd much rather see a 5% increase in my national insurance payments than an equivalent decrease in NHS funding. I'm not the only one either.
Why not look at what the NHS is spending money on at the same time to decide whether this is something that the State should fund or whether it's something the individual should pay for themselves.?I'd much rather see a 5% increase in my national insurance payments than an equivalent decrease in NHS funding. I'm not the only one either.
We shouldn't just look at 'what' though, we should also look at 'why'. If being able to get a free prescription for a bottle of calpol helps a struggling young family then why isn't that a worthwhile use of funds?
The opposite argument would be means test everything. Why should a powerfully built company director get a free heart bypass when he's got the cash to pay for it and a Ferrari on the drive?
Countdown said:
kiethton said:
Bust as somebody who will likely need this service whats better....£xxk of IVF now or the total cost of IVF annually for life courtesy of the NHS should the 50/50 chance conspire against us? (genetic condition)
Of course if covered on my Vitality of course that'll be the first port of call
Sorry I'm not sure I understand the question.Of course if covered on my Vitality of course that'll be the first port of call
Are you saying that, if you don't have IVF there's a 50:50 risk that any child you have may need permanent or long-term NHS care due to a genetic condition?
If so, I'm afraid my answer is that if you need IVF you should pay for it regardless of whether it's now or later. it is not something that should be provided on the NHS *at all*. (And the postcode lottery that currently exists is the worst option of all. No NHS service should be subject to a postcode lottery. Not one).
Countdown said:
kiethton said:
Bust as somebody who will likely need this service whats better....£xxk of IVF now or the total cost of IVF annually for life courtesy of the NHS should the 50/50 chance conspire against us? (genetic condition)
Of course if covered on my Vitality of course that'll be the first port of call
Sorry I'm not sure I understand the question.Of course if covered on my Vitality of course that'll be the first port of call
Are you saying that, if you don't have IVF there's a 50:50 risk that any child you have may need permanent or long-term NHS care due to a genetic condition?
I wouldn't be careless enough to procreate without owing to the risk and financial position but if this is withdrawn you'd just have people doing so, chancing the odds and costing the NHS many multiples of the initial cost over time
sidicks said:
Mr Will said:
Not falling for that trap - exactly which problem are you referring to?
The sustainability (or otherwise) of the NHS as it currently stands (I.e. The topic being discussed when you made your comment...)
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 28th March 16:02
If the problem is not that the NHS needs more money to continue operating in the same manner then providing more money will not work - but neither will cutting services.
Mr Will said:
...
We shouldn't just look at 'what' though, we should also look at 'why'. If being able to get a free prescription for a bottle of calpol helps a struggling young family then why isn't that a worthwhile use of funds?
...
Because it's available in supermarkets, along with equivalents, cheaply and is not a life saving necessity (in the vast majority of instances where it's used - I'm not sure if it has ever saved a life directly?).We shouldn't just look at 'what' though, we should also look at 'why'. If being able to get a free prescription for a bottle of calpol helps a struggling young family then why isn't that a worthwhile use of funds?
...
Mr Will said:
...
The opposite argument would be means test everything. Why should a powerfully built company director get a free heart bypass when he's got the cash to pay for it and a Ferrari on the drive?
If services provided were safety net in nature then I have absolutely no issue with this whatsoever. Same thing goes with other huge chunks of government expenditure.The opposite argument would be means test everything. Why should a powerfully built company director get a free heart bypass when he's got the cash to pay for it and a Ferrari on the drive?
Prescriptions are essentially means tested anyway (with a few exceptions that I'd also withdraw
).Mr Will said:
If the NHS needs more money to continue operating in the same manner, then yes - providing it with more money via increased taxation is one option to solve that problem.
Only if we can afford to provide that money.Given a large debt and significant deficit then is it viable to increase taxation to that extent? Evidence suggests otherwise.
Mr Will said:
If the problem is not that the NHS needs more money to continue operating in the same manner then providing more money will not work - but neither will cutting services.
I've no idea what point you are making.The point under discussion was whether the NHS is sustainable 'as, is' - all the evidence available suggests that without significant change it is not sustainable.
Countdown said:
That's what i was alluding to. At what point do we say "Sorry, we don't think that's something that the State should provide. If you want it you're on your own..."
Well IMO - life and death treatments should take priority when there is a squeeze on the NHS budget - and no matter which way you cut it - the withdrawal of Gluten free pasta on prescription is never going result in a life and death situation.Mr Will said:
No, the imbeciles are the ones that think that taxation is a complicated subject only they are clever enough to understand.
I'd much rather see a 5% increase in my national insurance payments than an equivalent decrease in NHS funding. I'm not the only one either.
Who is this aimed at, I don't believe anyone has said any such thing, unless you can demonstrate otherwise?I'd much rather see a 5% increase in my national insurance payments than an equivalent decrease in NHS funding. I'm not the only one either.
Murph7355 said:
jjlynn27 said:
All this, the antibiotics, the IVF, the gluten free food, in the grand scheme of things are an irrelevance.
We have more people and they are living longer. It is a simple as that.
The cost of healthcare provision for a man who is 89 is three times as much as for someone who is 70.
It's nine times as for someone who is 50. 32% of hospital costs are spent for 1% of the population. As Trumpster would say, they are big, not so beautiful numbers.
The UK is near the top of every obesity table. Not only that this influences outcomes of procedures, but a quick google says that £4.2b is spent on obesity-related treatments. Add in
Saving 100m on IVF is a distraction.
Tackling the low hanging fruit is essential if we are to make a start reforming the thing. We have more people and they are living longer. It is a simple as that.
The cost of healthcare provision for a man who is 89 is three times as much as for someone who is 70.
It's nine times as for someone who is 50. 32% of hospital costs are spent for 1% of the population. As Trumpster would say, they are big, not so beautiful numbers.
The UK is near the top of every obesity table. Not only that this influences outcomes of procedures, but a quick google says that £4.2b is spent on obesity-related treatments. Add in
Saving 100m on IVF is a distraction.
That is not to say that the other items you note are not important to resolve, but they are orders of magnitude more difficult to resolve and convince people on. If we can't convince people that having IVF on the NHS is not a sensible use of funds then we are truly screwed in terms of being able to create a sensible system.
The NHS is WAY beyond it's original scope and the assumptions that created it have been proven to be flawed. A radical rethink is required.
Mr Will said:
No, the imbeciles are the ones that think that taxation is a complicated subject only they are clever enough to understand.
I'd much rather see a 5% increase in my national insurance payments than an equivalent decrease in NHS funding. I'm not the only one either.
This is a matter of political leaning. You think spending can be increased ad infinitum. sidicks and I think costs need controlling.I'd much rather see a 5% increase in my national insurance payments than an equivalent decrease in NHS funding. I'm not the only one either.
The reality is a balance of both is required, but as we are currently in deficit and massive debt, the weight of imbecility is against you at this moment in time.
When it comes to preferences, I would rather you paid all the costs of people wanting IVF on the NHS rather than my taxes picking up any of it
A 5% increase in NI won't even touch the sides of the items jjlynn27 notes, and that's even IF that sort of NI rise could be implemented - look at the moaning at the proposed Self Employed NI increases! I would much sooner proper critical analysis of what services are provided is done (not nice NICE papers) and the services be trimmed back to meet a sustainable budget.If a political party then wants to put a manifesto together that reintroduces those services but that taxes will rise to provide them, then let them do so. With the scale of tax rise needed I guarantee that they will either not get elected or this country will go bankrupt quickly.
The big costs are age and population size related. Those are the savings that would make a difference. Shall we stop people over (random number) 75 getting help on NHS?
Shall we stop fatties getting NHS treatment? Smokers?
Should people who don't drink say; 'I'd much rather you pay for your illness that might be a result of your drinking'. I don't want my taxes to fund that'.
I'm not claiming to have answers, if I did (we did have some numbnuts in one of previous NHS threads who could save NHS 30-50% of the budget while providing better service) I would be advising governments around the world what to do. If I could deliver 3-5% savings, I'd quite happily work for 1% of the new and improved, the beautiful budget.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
How much is needed?How much can realistically be raised from increased taxation?
What other services would need to be cut to make up the difference?
What about our existing deficit, where is that funded from?
Unless you can answer these questions then any claim about 'sustainability' is absolute nonsense.
And the fact you can't answer these questions tells the story - you make bold claims that you can't justify and then are surprised when you get picked up on it, resorting instead to childish response.
sidicks said:
The point under discussion was whether the NHS is sustainable 'as, is' - all the evidence available suggests that without significant change it is not sustainable.
You keep saying that, and demanding that we provide evidence to argue against it, without providing a stitch of evidence of your own.Mr Will said:
You keep saying that, and demanding that we provide evidence to argue against it, without providing a stitch of evidence of your own.
I don't need to know - it's the person making the claim that needs to support that claim. Having said that:We have £1.8 trillion of debt, we currently overspend by £60bn per annum I.e. we therefore clearly can't afford 'current levels of spending.
All evidence points to an increasing population requiring more and more (expensive) treatment and hence the claims that increasing the NHS budget in real terms is insufficient.
And yet no-one can explain where the money will come from...
QED
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'm just asking you to justify your claims - an entirely reasonable request - that you seek to obfuscate and move the goalposts is telling.Even jjlynn27, who I seem to disagree with on most things (!) has admitted that the current approach is unsustainable and that changes are required.
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 28th March 17:06
aw51 121565 said:
I've worked in GP Surgeries (as a receptionist), and many parents don't like being told that they can buy Calpol for kiddo over the counter (or give him/her children's paracetamol instead) rather than us prescribing Calpol for free for the kid. I guess having to buy medicine for the offspring rather than having it on free prescriptions eats into the cigarette and tattoo funds somewhat...
These patients are a minority though. And this was happening in 2010, it's not a new thing. Individual GP Practices have some say as to what they will or will not prescribe, CCGs have input into the process as well and sometimes NHS England have their say (I suspect this is where the issue around GPs no longer prescribing gluten-free foods has come from, from memory).
Back to my first point, as someone who pays for my prescriptions why would I go to see my GP and ask for paracetamol when I can get a pack of 16 for 24p at the supermarket? Even if I had free prescriptions, I'd still not have a mentality of "the world owes me a living" and I'd buy the damn things.
Unbelievable we have 2 kids and always have a supply of calpol. I wouldn't dream of asking a doctor for it! This is why the NHS is screwed. And prescribing bread and pasta!? FFS I've heard it all now. These patients are a minority though. And this was happening in 2010, it's not a new thing. Individual GP Practices have some say as to what they will or will not prescribe, CCGs have input into the process as well and sometimes NHS England have their say (I suspect this is where the issue around GPs no longer prescribing gluten-free foods has come from, from memory).
Back to my first point, as someone who pays for my prescriptions why would I go to see my GP and ask for paracetamol when I can get a pack of 16 for 24p at the supermarket? Even if I had free prescriptions, I'd still not have a mentality of "the world owes me a living" and I'd buy the damn things.
BoRED S2upid said:
Unbelievable we have 2 kids and always have a supply of calpol. I wouldn't dream of asking a doctor for it! This is why the NHS is screwed. And prescribing bread and pasta!? FFS I've heard it all now.
Don't know why you're worried - apparently it is 'sustainable'...!Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 28th March 17:26
wiggy001 said:
Sorry but I don't buy this argument. A quick Google tells me that Tesco sell 500g pasta penne for between 30p and £1.28 while the gluten gluten free equivalent is £1.20. A loaf of gluten free bread is £1.40 (I'm sure I pay over a quid for a loaf).
So it's not like gluten free food is 5 times to price or hard to find, so why does it have to be on prescription?
My wife can't eat eggs... can we get a prescription for an alternative at the taxpayers expense? Of course not...
You're an idiot.So it's not like gluten free food is 5 times to price or hard to find, so why does it have to be on prescription?
My wife can't eat eggs... can we get a prescription for an alternative at the taxpayers expense? Of course not...
That loaf is 375g, half the size of a standard loaf. It's also twice the price of the cheapest loaf.
Hence it is easily 4 times more expensive.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff