Would you pay higher taxes for NHS drugs for all? Poll discussion

Hintza

Let us not miss an important point. You get old and you die...that is life.

Personally I think the whole NHS needs to be revamped and taxes reduced to allow those that can to buy insurance cover. The NHS in this day and age can not look after every one it should really be just a safety net for those in difficulties.

The medical profession seem to want to keep every one alive well past their sell by date, we need to understand the cycle of life and where we are on that cycle.

Three score and ten seems a reasonable innings to me, my mother has already signed a living will to ensure that when her time comes the medical profession will not waste time, money and resources. Eeek...I'll be there in 22 years!!!

The other issue that annoys me is using folk in their dotage to massage cancer figures. If someone dies at 90 of prostrate cancer it is hardly helpful adding them to list of cancer victims!!

grasscutter_2

Becky wrote: »

Who pays for the fact that Wales have free prescriptions?

Does the whole of Britain or the EU pay for this?

And don't forget Scotland who are able to have all the NHS drugs which are not allowed in England. Again who pays for that, if it is all UK tax payers then in England some of our cah goes to Scotland to pay for these drugs and there is even less money left in the England purse to pay for our NHS drugs

sinizterguy

MSE_Martin wrote: »

I understand some of the comments regarding the poll - though do remember it is deliberately stark to allow focus on the issue.

While improving NHS efficiency would certainly help - do remember some of these drugs can cost £30,000 per person per year - and there can be 100,000s suffering. The question is about "access to all drugs for all" - something that simply isn't affordable within the current tax structure.

Hence the question ignoring NHS efficiencies and just looking at the pure issue of the cost of drugs.

Martin

Stark honest reply - I wouldnt pay more.

All drugs for all is not even a dream in socialised medicine run at the scale the NHS is.

But I *may* consider it if the extra money will be completely ringfenced and penny-by-penny breakdown will be available for public view.

Francisca

I would love to commit more money through taxation to fund the NHS. I think a healthy population contributes socially and economically to the success of the country as a whole.

That said I do not feel it will be viable to contribute more through taxation, my generation are already faced with a massive retirement population to support, in pensions contribution and social security and this looks set to increase. The demographics are not feasible.

I have worked with elderly people and they are quite literally kept alive on a huge drug regime, one being used to counternance the effects of another; more often than not they have no desire to carry on with such a poor quality of life. It is controversial to say it, but there reaches a point when it becomes medically futile to keep people alive with drugs (or surgery), whether they wish it or not.

I think we need an increase in the number of generic medicines prescribed, and an effort on the part of the NHS to increase its overall buying power and leverage with the pharmaceutical industry. Plus more money into drug research and development by academic, NHS and charitable institutions, and the utilisation and commericalisation of this knowledge more effectively by them.

(Its interesting to note the part about benefits "scroungers" (who are these people? Last time I heard there were billions in unclaimed benefits, I think if they can navigate the complexities of the benefits' system so effectively then they deserve whatever they can get!), but no one ever mentions the tax breaks applied to businesses or the wealthy individuals who manage to circumvent the income tax rules and end up paying a pittance, they are depriving us all of resources just as much. Just a thought.) :rotfl:

dazchief

I think people have a pre-conceived idea that the NHS is short of funds.

It is not.

What the NHS lacks is someone to have the strength and guts to provide the drugs to the most needy.

Money is wasted in the NHS; by the bucket loads.

1) The focus should be on the bio-medical patients, ie those patients have symptoms which can be seen and pro-actively treated.

2) Reduce the 'softer' treatements like giving boob jobs to 16 year olds because they are psychologically scared for life, or the 17 year old who had her legs broken and extended on the NHS so she should could be an air stewardess.

3) The NHS is for Britain, not for Europe/World.

Done!

ken_1969

My wife was prescribed accomplia (aka [SIZE=-1]rimonabant) which is a very expensive and fairly new weight loss drug. She was prescribed this not for any health reason but so she could meet the NHS requirement for IVF treatment which is a BMI of 30 or less. So, hardly a necessary treatment.
She recommended that her mother ask the doctor for this drug as it was incredibly effective, but her mother was told this drug is not available on the NHS. Her mother has hip problems which are exacerbated hugely by her weight problem and she has tried a number of methods to lose weight, none of which have been effective.
To give you an idea, I have seen these drugs advertised for over £100 for a 30 day supply, and my wife received them at standard prescription rates for three months.
So despite being the beneficiary (indirectly) I am concerned about the squandering of NHS funds for very expensive non-essential treatments
like this.
On the other hand, my 78 year old mother is on a number of medications (average about 8-10 pills twice a day) which have given her an ongoing quality of life she simply could not have without.
Bottom line is that we all know the NHS needs revamping to become more cost-effect but it's just not likely to happen.
Sadly I see us going the way of the US where everyone is forced to pay for private health insurance, and of course we will end up in that same trap where the treatment you urgently need conveniently is not covered.
There is certainly an argument that those that can afford private health insurance should do so and certainly the last two companies I've worked for have had a private health policy as a benefit.
But given the percentage of the population on ridiculously low wages it is just not viable for everyone to do so.
As a higher rate tax payer myself I do resent being tarred with this brush of being a tax evader! I have never even attempted to avoid paying tax, nor do the vast majority of higher rate tax payers. Those that do are a criminal minority.
Also I have to say I totally disagree that higher earners should pay a higher rate of tax. Tax is a percentage of income. Therefore, if I earn more than you, I will always pay more in tax, and that is fair.
If we introduced a flat income tax system it would in fact encourage those who currently spend large sums on tax lawyers to instead simply pay their taxes rather than avoid them.
Tax breaks for businesses are there to encourage commerce, which in turn encourages employment - and enables more people to pay taxes. So I don't see any problem with that.
Surely for improving the economy and giving employment businesses must be encouraged? Otherwise what motivation is there for people to take the (often very large) risk of owning a business? Having worked for a number of failed businesses I know that without a decent incentive there would be less entrepreneurship and therefore less employment and a poorer economy.
[/SIZE]

toracat

grasscutter wrote: »

And don't forget Scotland who are able to have all the NHS drugs which are not allowed in England. Again who pays for that, if it is all UK tax payers then in England some of our cah goes to Scotland to pay for these drugs and there is even less money left in the England purse to pay for our NHS drugs

NHS Scotland is seperate from the NHS in England, and its budgets and targets run through the Scottish Exec. Drug licencing decisions in Scotland are also seperate from those in England.
Also, what about all the taxes paid in Scotland - they go to Westminster first do they not???
As the Scottish NHS is seperate, therefore your point about English cash paying for Scottish people to have drugs you are not allowed in England is off mark. There are things in England such as being able to pick your hospital of choice for treatment which are NOT available in Scotland. Please in future, don't lump both together, as I'm sure I'm not the only person working in NHS Scotland who gets really frustrated by the media and everyone doing this. _pale_

By the way, I also agree with the previous poster who pointed out that within the NHS we are paid considerably less than our commercial and private sector comparative jobs, and also usually other government sector jobs.

anntics

I worked in the NHS for almost 30 years before very reluctantly retiring on ill-health. I saw waste from every angle, both within the organisation (at all levels, not just managers) and by users of the services. One of the most common remarks I heard was 'well, it's free', or ' I pay/paid my taxes so I'm entitled to it'. I had a hard time convincing some patients that the NHS was not 'free' it was paid for by the hard-earned taxes of working people and that efficient use of resources by everyone would help to preserve the service for all. When working as a community nurse it was not unusual to find cupboards full of unused medicines in patients' homes, I hope it is different now with limits on the number of repeat prescriptions allowed, but I suspect it still happens.

In the latter part of my nursing career I was also a department manager as well as continuing with clinical work and saw the management function from the other side of the fence. When I was a student and a staff nurse, I didn't even stop to think where supplies came from and how much they cost, as a manager I suddenly saw the costs of these things. I tried to make sure that people in my department had an understanding of costs and I tried to foster a mind-set of efficiency and avoidance of waste.

Managers are necessary to perform non-clinical functions in the NHS. Time spent on these functions took me away from clinical work and patient care, when many could have been undertaken by others in a more cost-efficient way.

Unfortunately money is a finite resource and everyone has issues that are close to their hearts or affect them personally and therefore feel that these deserve the allocation of resources. How do we decide between cancer and alzheimer's for instance? Both are devastating conditions. Personally, I think that NICE made the wrong decision about the Alzheimer treatment. It costs less than £1000 per patient per year, far, far less than the cost of supporting the sufferers and their carers at home, treating carers who become ill through the burden of caring, or admission to a nursing home. If patients were monitored carefully with everyone having a clinical trial for effectiveness, those who were not helped could be taken off after a specified period of time, avoiding unnecessary waste, while allowing those who are helped to continue with the treatment. The problem, as with many issues, is that the cost is borne by one budget, but the savings flow back into another.

sluggy1967

My husband has a very complicated and devastating brain condition which is extremely rare. His Consultant is the top person in this field in London (we live in Yorkshire & have to travel down to see him) and recommended a new treatment of plasma infusions which is expensive. Our local Primary Care Trust originally refused to fund this, but on appeal have now agreed, albeit grudgingly. My point in this is that I do not believe that a meeting made up of "Lay people" should question a Top Consultant's handling of a patient's treatment, when their sole criteria for approval is money. The money should be there for ANY patient who needs whatever treatment is necessary if that is the opinion of that patient's doctor. After all, if someone crashes their car whilst drunk or breaks their leg doing rock climbing no one ever questions whether money should be spent on them getting better do they?

teddyco

Super-drugs are not the answer!

I think we are missing the point completely when it comes to the cause and effect of the illnesses in this country.

In the United States, the pharmaceutical companies have such a choke-hold on the American public that drugs have become the be-all, end-all cure of the 21st Century. It's all poison! The only good one..........aspirin.

The answer to all our health problems is not a fancy and expensive wonder drug, but a change to our health patterns and diet.

I would like to see the total banning of pesticides and herbicides that are sprayed on our food. Can you imagine spraying a shot of bug spray into the mouth of your children every month? How about pouring a shot glass full of food coloring or additives into their milk before they go to school.

Prince Charles has been speaking on this same subject for years, but everyone thinks he's a weirdo or nuts for doing it. He is absolutely right!

I read in the papers the other day where scientists have discovered a connection to Alzheimer's and high traces of aluminum in the brain. How did this aluminum get there and what are we eating and drinking that put it there? Those are the questions we should be asking?

Once upon a time, lead was added to paint and then we discovered that is was poison to the body. Should we also look at aluminum?

I can think of a list of things that our government could do to improve health rather than pump us full of Super-Drugs and then make us fight over higher taxes to pay for it, while Enron style executives sit at the top getting rich.

Pharmaceutical companies know that they cannot patent healthy eating. Carrots, beets, oranges and cabbage cannot be patented, but 'super-drugs' can and they are making a fortune on our demise.

Take chemo-therapy......In the USA, the American Medical Association puts their seal of approval on this barbaric method of cancer treatment. Jackie O, didn't die from Hodgkins-Lymphoma, she died from the chemo!

Yes, the chemo kills the cancer for a short term, but it also destroys the immune system of the body, so how can this be a 'cure'?

Our body is a miracle of creation! The bible says that we are 'fearfully and wonderfully made'. God gave us an immune system that was designed to fight disease, but if we are constantly putting chemical after chemical after chemical into it, starving it of vitamins and minerals found in whole grain breads, beans, vegetables and fruits, how can we hope to survive on planet earth.

Bring back mandatory exercise for children at schools.
Hire a dietician for every school to meet nutrition targets for school lunches.
Ban the use of pesticides and herbicides in the farming industry.
Discuss better strategies for management of farm land to avoid over farming that destroys the vitamins and minerals in the soil. Possibly letting the land 'rest' for a year while it builds back nutrients naturally to avoid having to add man-made fertilizers and chemicals.

The solution to our health problems is not what drugs we need to develop, but what we need to stop putting into our mouth!

Do you drink tap water right out of the tap? STOP! Scientists are just now discovering the harmful effects that chlorine has on the human body.

In a summary announcement, 'Water UK' makes the statement: "The risks to health through inadequate disinfection are much more significant and immediate than any theoretical and long-term risks from by-products of the disinfection process."

So they definitely admit that there is a 'risk' to drinking chlorine in the water, but they don't say 'how much' or 'explain it'.

The New York State Department of Health describes the effects of Chlorine in the body: What are the immediate health effects of chlorine exposure?

Most harmful chlorine exposures are the result of inhalation. Health effects typically begin within seconds to minutes. Following chlorine exposure, the most common symptoms are:

Airway irritation
Wheezing
Difficulty breathing
Sore throat
Cough
Chest tightness
Eye irritation
Skin irritation

The severity of health effects depend upon the route of exposure, the dose and the duration of exposure to chlorine. Breathing high levels of chlorine causes fluid build-up in the lungs, a condition known as pulmonary edema. The development of pulmonary edema may be delayed for several hours after exposure to chlorine. Contact with compressed liquid chlorine may cause frostbite of the skin and eyes.

That's all well and good flowing through the pipes, but you don't want to be drinking all that chlorine once it gets to your tummy do you?
Solution: Home Water Filtration.

Even if you can't afford an expensive system, get a Brita pitcher and try and filter some of it. What about lead in the system. How many of these old Victorian pipes are still under the ground with lead in them?

YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT!