Pay For Drugs?

Former_MSE_Andrea

Poll Title: Poll started 30 May 2006. Should we pay for wonder-drugs for all? There's been huge debate around the NHS not prescribing new wonder drugs for eyesight or breast cancer to all, yet it could cost £4,000 to £20,000 a year per person and maybe 100,000s need them. Who pays? All of us, in higher taxes? (let’s ignore the role of the drugs companies).

To test the view, let’s make it a stark choice; suppose we all needed to pay 10% extra tax to fund it... what would you say?

No. We have to accept there are limits, I won't pay more tax
Yes. Health's too important even if income tax needed to rise 10%

Vote here or click reply to give your view

Boomdocker

Thats a tough question and even tougher to pick between just two options. I know we all have our opinions. I personally am happy with the NHS for what I and my family have received over the years. I know others will disagree.

I don't neccessarily want to pay more but I would if I needed it or a friend or family member needed it. Easy to say I know.

I would like to see more work in spending the current NHS budget more wisely. There seems to be too many chiefs and pen pushers but I dont have all the facts to expand on that point. Also there's too much of this postcode lottery going on. If you pay your fair share of contributions you should be able to get your fair share of treatments in an ideal world.

I think the NHS is marvellous and we are lucky to have it but it needs an over haul. I think I would be happy to pay a little more but 10% is high.

This should be an interesting and varied thread.

MSE_Martin

Hi folks - the stark choice is quite deliberate. Thought it would be fun to make it a rather extreme choice - in some ways it adds clarity.

Martin

writealist

I have witnessed first hand the amount of non-essential spending in the NHS - particularly by Primary Care Trusts and Strategic Health Authorities. There is also a huge amount of high cost duplication that goes on in these organisations so I would definitely not want to pay more in tax.

If Martin did a 'Make me Rich' episode with the NHS he'd probably find enough money to pay for the drugs required!

I have always received good treatment from the NHS and believe that we have a good service - but just think how great it could be without the waste.

Astaroth

I think we would firstly need to deterim the fact these are wonder drugs. At the end of the day they are marketed by companies who intend to make big profits from their sale. Are they not going to claim that all their drugs are "wonder drugs" and add to this tabloid hype and a good drug for a proportion of suffers for a condition suddenly becomes the cure to all ills.

Ok... so assuming that there are "wonder drugs" should I pay more so people can receive them? Well after the previous threads on benefits I would say not. There is more than enough money in the system to pay for these as it is - esp if they claim that providing them will save money rather than cost it - I think we would be better off sorting out our benefits system, beaurcracy in government offices including the NHS than simply introducing another tax which would most likely fund these other wastes anyway.

mh1923

Is that 10% more of actual tax paid, or 10% added on to the tax rate we already pay?

Boomdocker

writealist wrote:

If Martin did a 'Make me Rich' episode with the NHS he'd probably find enough money to pay for the drugs required!

That sounds like a challenge Martin. :T

Hunnicrunch

As the relative of two long-term NHS patients, I see so much costly waste and inefficiency on a day-to-day basis, from very low-level inefficiencies like duplicate appointment letters arriving in the post on the same day, to more major problems such as a new hospital multi-storey car-park being built to the wrong size specification and having to be part demolished and rebuilt.
We could have a world-class service but the whole system needs a complete overhaul, from the top down, to weed out the areas of financial wastage and to re-prioritise the needs of the patients.

teddyco

I would not want to continue paying more tax to fund more expense in the NHS, and it would be nice to see more services moving toward the private sector.

For example, have a "Two tier system" that existed of both public and private. The public sector (NHS) would be reduced to cover things like automobile accidents, ambulance expenses and only surgeries and treatments to solve problems that were life threatening.

Then things like hip replacement, cataract surgery, cancer treatment, heart surgery and organ transplants would be moved into the private sector. Cut the public services, lower the taxes and allow people to use that extra money to purchase private health insurance with BUPA. A lot of companies already offer it to their employees essentially paying double for medical insurance.

Also scrap the NHS dentistry services, give us our money back so we can afford the private dentists that have replaced all the NHS dentists which are as rare as hens teeth.

7th_Song

The only problem with a stark question is that it's not always possible to answer. Would you rather be hung or shot?

If we must prioritise, and despite the the waste that could, but will not be, addressed I think we must, shouldn't we start with life threatening, move on to quality of life and only concern ourselves with cosmetics, IVF etc after those top priorities are met, regardless of treatment cost. Shouldn't a National, state funded service concentrate on keeping us alive and reasonably fit, active and mobile above all else?

As for paying more tax, no problem as long as I am sure it is not being misused, not much chance of that!:mad:

Dora_the_Explorer_5

Financial misuse and incompetence happens in all organisations, large or small. The difference is that we all have a vested interest in the NHs. The public is manipulated by the media who love to strew emotional red herrings hither and thither with Herceptin being an example of that. The number of women who will benefit from this drug is extremely small and the NHS both ethically and scientifically must deliver evidence based treatment