GLASGOWOODS Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 Annoys me that I have to pay £8.05 for Asthma inhalers that clearly do not cost anything like that to produce. They should be available over the counter. We don't pay a penny for prescriptions up here in Scotland. Which I don't agree with. Those who can afford them, should pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 Interesting thread with some interesting points. With reference to the poor chap who starved to death, that rather sad story highlights more than just a creaking benefits system and some very sharp practice from JCplus. It shows how families and communities have fractured and, possibly, how poorly funded the NhS is when it comes to the well being of our citizens. Just pinning it on the government is lazy thinking. The cancer drug thing is a different thing again. £90k is a lot of money for someone who might (might being the operative world) get a year. Would I want it? Honestly no - I'd rather have £90k and go nuts and die of excess. I'm on the side of NICE on this one - it's a lot of money but then again I haven't got a relative dying of cancer. However, it's worth noting that the price of drugs do come down so it will be worth revisiting. However, we are still looking at a dementia time bomb that's going to blow up in this country and that gets 10% of the research cancer research gets. The other option is that we all, by all not the super rich or large multinationals will need to pay much more in tax. How much more are you willing to pay? But we do value life much more, look at the raft of health and safety measure wheeled out over the decades. Look at how much money developed countries chuck at smart weapons. As bad as gaza is, 1500 people dead in a built up area in a month of bombing would be 10 times worse 40 years ago. We won't tolerate our governments carpet bombing civilians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intake Too Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 Did this doctor have a bone through his nose? £104 a year...not 100s and 100s 3 years at 104 per years is hundreds. I didnt use a ppc for the first you as i didnt know it was going to last so long. And why would the doctor hjave a bone through his nose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted August 10, 2014 Author Share Posted August 10, 2014 £2 a month will help save a child's life in the third world blah blah blah so why are prescriptions here £8? That's what they are set at, only a minority of people pat this charge. It might be £8 for some, and free for others, can even be free for all if prescribed in A&E, but the drug could be anything from 3p to £1000+ That £2 a month in the third world will be used to treat the most easily preventable diseases, it will also be pooled with other people's £2 a month. It is money better spent than say £4k/month on a cancer drug, if it is spent on providing cost effective healthcare for the poorest instead of tv adverts and high wages for idle ceos and others on the charity gravy train, that is. The issue is not the prescription charge. It is how much money the state spends on healthcare or what not to save lives, and the value for money it gets. Suppose the starving ex soldier had cancer. We'd be prepared as a society to sanction him for a measly £3k, potentially, ultimately killing him, yet at the same time spend a whopping £50k per annum to treat his cancer whilst he starves to the death for the sake of a few grand. There isnt much point treating cancer if he is to be starved to death via sanctions on the meagre dole. It is a complete waste of money. You don't spend vast sums of money on something you are about to casually dispose of. But if we are prepared to spend £30k on keeping people alive, £50k for the elderly who have already lived most of their lives, then surely we should have a benefits system the provides a minimum income to people to stop people dying of starvation. If it is cost effective to spend £50k on cancer. Then surely it is cost effective to spend £10k on feeding and housing people. The average life expectancy of a homeless person is 49. If we can spend £50k per annum on a person who is nearly due death to extend their life for a year. Then surely it makes sense to spend a million on a mansion for a homeless person to up their life expectancy by 20+ years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 3 years at 104 per years is hundreds. I didnt use a ppc for the first you as i didnt know it was going to last so long. And why would the doctor hjave a bone through his nose? Yes it is but you said you dare not even begin to think of how much you've spent. 3 yrs @£104 = £312...easy really. The doctor reference was aimed at him knowing you would be on repeat prescription or at least anticipate it therefore advising you of PPC, being as you've inferred the cost of them are high. Not advising his patient of cost help is negligent when you consider PPC comes in quarterly options also@£22.00 thus easing the burden even further short term. Basically, your "I darent even begin to add up what ive spent" isn't the fault of the NHS on how much you spent or what other essentials you had to forego, it was yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 That's what they are set at, only a minority of people pat this charge. It might be £8 for some, and free for others, can even be free for all if prescribed in A&E, but the drug could be anything from 3p to £1000+ That £2 a month in the third world will be used to treat the most easily preventable diseases, it will also be pooled with other people's £2 a month. It is money better spent than say £4k/month on a cancer drug, if it is spent on providing cost effective healthcare for the poorest instead of tv adverts and high wages for idle ceos and others on the charity gravy train, that is. The issue is not the prescription charge. It is how much money the state spends on healthcare or what not to save lives, and the value for money it gets. Suppose the starving ex soldier had cancer. We'd be prepared as a society to sanction him for a measly £3k, potentially, ultimately killing him, yet at the same time spend a whopping £50k per annum to treat his cancer whilst he starves to the death for the sake of a few grand. There isnt much point treating cancer if he is to be starved to death via sanctions on the meagre dole. It is a complete waste of money. You don't spend vast sums of money on something you are about to casually dispose of. But if we are prepared to spend £30k on keeping people alive, £50k for the elderly who have already lived most of their lives, then surely we should have a benefits system the provides a minimum income to people to stop people dying of starvation. If it is cost effective to spend £50k on cancer. Then surely it is cost effective to spend £10k on feeding and housing people. The average life expectancy of a homeless person is 49. If we can spend £50k per annum on a person who is nearly due death to extend their life for a year. Then surely it makes sense to spend a million on a mansion for a homeless person to up their life expectancy by 20+ years. I noticed his sister was quick to go to the press - how quick was she to offer him a bed or space in a fridge for some insulin or a couple of quid for the leccy? Are neighbours oblivious? What were the GPs and the surgery's thoughts on managing this problem? Were they aware? If they weren't, were the neighbours and or sisters offers of help declined? If that's the case you have to think the poor chap and either had mental health issues or was too proud and stubborn and that killed him. As I said, and I can appreciate this is a pet project of yours (not in a derogatory way) but there are wider issues here than JCplus stopping his money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natjack Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 Overvalued. You only have to look at the problems of getting assisted suicide on the stature books, for instance. And keeping people in comas alive artificially for years and resuscitating people of advanced age in old people's homes suffering from dementia. Looking after people who are long past their sell-by date is big business in the West. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intake Too Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 Yes it is but you said you dare not even begin to think of how much you've spent. 3 yrs @£104 = £312...easy really. No, i paid for separate scripts in my first year. I did say that. Plus its more like 4 years in fact it will be 4 years in december. How time flies when your laid up. If only i knew about Sheffield forum back when i first became ill you could have entertained me with your armature baiting and pointless waffling. Still i know about it now and thats the main thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 No, i paid for separate scripts in my first year. I did say that. Plus its more like 4 years in fact it will be 4 years in december. How time flies when your laid up. If only i knew about Sheffield forum back when i first became ill you could have entertained me with your armature baiting and pointless waffling. Still i know about it now and thats the main thing. I wish you'd stop crying and moaning, it's embarrassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intake Too Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 I wish you'd stop crying and moaning, it's embarrassing. Then dont listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.