Prescription charges

qwert_yuiop

The way it works down south, you have to pay for all drugs (at a hugely inflated price - ever notice the number of chemists down there?) unless you have a medical card entitling you to free health care (you're poor), but if you have a chronic problem like diabetes, there's a maximum monthly charge.

BigAl94

warmhands.coldheart wrote: »

Yip...... seems pretty logical to me... same way the more food a family requires... the more they pay for said more food...... the more you drive your car... the more fuel you'll require so the more you'll pay....

Healthy people who do not get regular prescriuptions or who rarely go to the hospital pay into the NHS too you know!!! it's called National Insurance!!

You misquoted me by omission. There is a difference between paying for medications and paying into a specific drugs fund from which others who don't contribute will benefit.

warmhands.coldheart

BigAl94 wrote: »

You misquoted me by omission. There is a difference between paying for medications and paying into a specific drugs fund from which others who don't contribute will benefit.

and those who work and are in good health and do not regularly make use of the NHS or it's service are doing so via National Insurance payments....

BigAl94

warmhands.coldheart wrote: »

and those who work and are in good health and do not regularly make use of the NHS or it's service are doing so via National Insurance payments....

You are totally missing the point and by the way National Insurance payments do not contribute to the NHS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance

warmhands.coldheart

BigAl94 wrote: »

You are totally missing the point and by the way National Insurance payments do not contribute to the NHS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance

I stand Corrected but the point is still the same..... Drugs cost money and someone has to pay so those using them should at the least contribute something... even if it is minimal...

BigAl94

warmhands.coldheart wrote: »

I stand Corrected but the point is still the same..... Drugs cost money and someone has to pay so those using them should at the least contribute something... even if it is minimal...

I'm not disagreeing with what you say but this is not an equitable way to pay for a specific cancer drug fund.

jenheiffer

saverbuyer wrote: »

I just used Calpol to make it easier. I could have said paracetamol suspension but I doubt the mad mum used the generic name on her angry twitter feed.

I called it Calpol for the same reason. It's like the way we call diazepam Valium or ibuprofen Brufen. Or any vacumm cleaner a Hoover.

warmhands.coldheart

BigAl94 wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with what you say but this is not an equitable way to pay for a specific cancer drug fund.

I'd agree..... Expensive new treatments are in themselves a very controversial subject..... why spend £200,000 a year on one persons treatmant to keep them alive for an extra 6 months or a year when the same money could employ 8 or 10 nurses to look after significantly more people.... .it's a hard one to call......

qwert_yuiop

warmhands.coldheart wrote: »

I'd agree..... Expensive new treatments are in themselves a very controversial subject..... why spend £200,000 a year on one persons treatmant to keep them alive for an extra 6 months or a year when the same money could employ 8 or 10 nurses to look after significantly more people.... .it's a hard one to call......

They get more than £ 20,000 a year, but this it seems is where health care costs have increased throughout the last generation - intensive care for those who by and large will not last very much longer, and saving very premature babies who wouldn't have made it 30 years ago. Remember when women in England could get an abortion up to 26 weeks? Now a premature baby can be kept alive at that stage.

By the way, who heard Dr Alastair McDonnell making an eejit of himself the other day? "Amniocentesis is never right" Never right? Coin tossing is right half the time.

emmett123

And of course the thread like Godwins Law dictates, ends with reducing life down a cost benefit anaylsis. The drugs needed to extend your life are too expensive and frankly you just arent worth it. Obviously its the patients fault they got cancer..bum deal, you see thats the most profitable (sorry... costly to the public purse) diease. Now if you had of got the flu, 25p paracetamol from tesco would have sorted you right out. But dont be asking why one is 25p and the other is £10,000s a year...the private sector have thier profits to generate (300 billion $ a year) and we all have to pay them what ever they ask. They are wealth creators after all, just at the cost of reducing our standard of life.