Is it time access to free NHS care was age limited?

DigForVictory

the_flying_pig wrote: »

We should have something like dignitas.

We might start to think if there might be a way for us to pause for thought when tossing round treatments for the very old, e.g. my grandad was (no doubt expensively, particularly when factoring in subsequent care costs) resuscitated from the very brink of death after having a heart attack in his late eighties, the couple of extra years of exceptionally poor quality, unhappy, life that it bought him really didn't do anyone, the patient most of all, any favours.

Mindful that Dignitas still won't help if you can't take the pills unaided, the whole assisted suicide (sheesh the language does not help) issue could be reviewed. For quality of life though, not cost issues.
As for not wanting expensive & ultimately ineffective care, I have an advanced directive in place. I heard about them, read up, & had a short chat with my GP. To find she & most of her colleagues had them too - they know better than most what CPR can do to a frail person & how before antibiotics, pneumonia was greeted as "the old man's friend." It's staged with various dates - while my sons are in education, I want to stay alive. Someone has to work to pay the teachers - may as well include me. Much later on, I may be willing to go at short notice or at least not held onto too tightly. That's for the lads' benefit again - hospital visiting, carehome picking? It's tough.

ruperts

teddysmum wrote: »

I doubt you are very old (14? based on mentality) and wonder if ,should you get your wish, you will change your mind as you approach 75.


Will you do off happily to Dignitas UK or will you insist that you still have plenty of useful life left in you yet ? In the 1940s, 'poor old Mrs Jones' was actually only 50; old because of hardship, but nowadays, many at 75 are still quite sprightly.

Absolutely fine. If they're quite sprightly then they can do a few odd jobs to pay for the minimal amount of care they require or pay for it out of the money they diligently saved while they were working. In fact I'd even say a few routine inexpensive bits of care would continue being provided for free, so people living predominantly healthy lives wouldn't be affected.

ruperts

chucknorris wrote: »

Why should I pay the higher rate of tax (and I will be) and not have access to the NHS? I might as well go over and live in the states, I quite like the thought of living in the Californian climate anyway.

If you're paying higher rate tax through retirement then you've more than enough money to pay for comprehensive private health insurance.

Why should all the money be spent on you just because you're a higher rate tax payer? Aren't suffering children equally deserving of care? Your attitude typifies the older generation - all 'me, me, me, what can I get out of it, to hell with suffering kids I want all the money to be spent on me'. Horrible. Just a horrible attitude.

Sapphire

ruperts wrote: »

If you're paying higher rate tax through retirement then you've more than enough money to pay for comprehensive private health insurance.

Why should all the money be spent on you just because you're a higher rate tax payer? Aren't suffering children equally deserving of care? Your attitude typifies the older generation - all 'me, me, me, what can I get out of it, to hell with suffering kids I want all the money to be spent on me'. Horrible. Just a horrible attitude.

Utterly clueless. This must be an ignorant 16–20-year old who has no connection with the 'older generation', including his grandparents and possibly his parents (or who has been mistreated by them). One wonders where and how such a cretin was raised.

And what is all this business about 'suffering kids'? No 'kids' in Britain 'suffer' compared to how it was even 30 years ago – unless it's through their parents' neglect or unfortunate spoiling of their kids to make them believe they are 'suffering'. :rotfl:

Ah, well – his problem.

ruperts

Sapphire wrote: »

Utterly clueless. This must be an ignorant 16–20-year old who has no connection with the 'older generation', including his grandparents and possibly his parents (or who has been mistreated by them). One wonders where and how such a cretin was raised.

And what is all this business about 'suffering kids'? No 'kids' in Britain 'suffer' compared to how it was even 30 years ago – unless it's through their parents' neglect or unfortunate spoiling of their kids to make them believe they are 'suffering'. :rotfl:

Ah, well – his problem.

Perhaps laying off the personal insults might be the more mature approach?

Though it is ironic that you attempt to insult me by implying that I am just an ignorant youngster when it appears that you live in some sort of fantasy alternative universe where there is no poverty in the UK and no children are growing up in poverty with severely limited opportunities. Honestly, I'm gobsmacked that someone could live in the UK and make a statement like "no kids in Britain suffer". I can only guess you've made so much money off the state and artificially booming house prices that you can now afford to completely insulate yourself from what is going on around you. Because nobody I know who lives here would ever utter such nonsense. Awful. What an awful attitude and terrible ignorance.

chucknorris

ruperts wrote: »

If you're paying higher rate tax through retirement then you've more than enough money to pay for comprehensive private health insurance.

Why should all the money be spent on you just because you're a higher rate tax payer? Aren't suffering children equally deserving of care? Your attitude typifies the older generation - all 'me, me, me, what can I get out of it, to hell with suffering kids I want all the money to be spent on me'. Horrible. Just a horrible attitude.

How is all the money being spent on me? Believe me if I am unfortunate enough to develop something serious. I will NOT be relying on the NHS (despite paying into it), I see that as cover for everyday things (ie, breaking a leg etc). In that situation I will definitely be treated privately.

Furthermore a very valid point IMO, why can't I get tax relief on premiums for private medical care?

BobQ

ruperts wrote: »

Absolutely fine. If they're quite sprightly then they can do a few odd jobs to pay for the minimal amount of care they require or pay for it out of the money they diligently saved while they were working. In fact I'd even say a few routine inexpensive bits of care would continue being provided for free, so people living predominantly healthy lives wouldn't be affected.

You forget that these are the same old codgers that established the NHS in order that ungrateful souls like you can advocate withdrawing their access to it. These same people who paid for the NHS through much of their life.

Teapot55

There used to be an expression: 'Divide and rule'. We don't hear very much about this nowadays but it is still going on.

It's easy to fall into the trap of blaming 'them' for your unfortunate individual circumstances. The key question is: which 'them' are you blaming? Various degrees of political incorrectness to blame 'migrants' 'Europeans' 'scroungers' 'younger people' 'older people' 'working mothers' blah, blah, blah.

Who did we all vote for to sort out the mess? (You did vote didn't you?) Could it be their fault? Could it all be planned? Are you the victim of a decision to follow the line of least harm / choosing the greater good (like it being cheaper to pay you compensation for the loss of your leg when the train driver fails to spot you on cab-cam than to pay a guard for a year)?

All the same, if you (OP) are under thirty then you have got it pretty sh*t. There is no getting away from it.

However, it is not my fault that I got a student grant when I chose higher education or that there was continuous employment in the seventies, or that my parents were able to buy their council house then die & leave me a nice inheritance. Neither is it my fault that my own children cannot afford a mortgage & have to rent.

We need to look for realistic solutions, not eugenics.

Answers on a postcard . . .

BobQ

Teapot55 wrote: »

There used to be an expression: 'Divide and rule'. We don't hear very much about this nowadays but it is still going on.

It's easy to fall into the trap of blaming 'them' for your unfortunate individual circumstances. The key question is: which 'them' are you blaming? Various degrees of political incorrectness to blame 'migrants' 'Europeans' 'scroungers' 'younger people' 'older people' 'working mothers' blah, blah, blah.

Who did we all vote for to sort out the mess? (You did vote didn't you?) Could it be their fault? Could it all be planned? Are you the victim of a decision to follow the line of least harm / choosing the greater good (like it being cheaper to pay you compensation for the loss of your leg when the train driver fails to spot you on cab-cam than to pay a guard for a year)?

All the same, if you (OP) are under thirty then you have got it pretty sh*t. There is no getting away from it.

However, it is not my fault that I got a student grant when I chose higher education or that there was continuous employment in the seventies, or that my parents were able to buy their council house then die & leave me a nice inheritance. Neither is it my fault that my own children cannot afford a mortgage & have to rent.

We need to look for realistic solutions, not eugenics.

Answers on a postcard . . .

Divide and Rule made Britain a dominant force in the world and is now quite endemic in the establishment. But its now being used as a weapon to make us fight each other rather than work for the common good. Boomers vs Non-Boomers; Old versus Young; Public versus Private Sector; Brexiters vs Remainers; House owners vs Renters; North vs South; Immigrants vs Non-immigrants.....

What ever happened to British tolerance

zagubov

It sounds like we realise we could save money by restricting medicine so those in most need don't "waste" it.

That sounds very much like saving the defence budget during wars by sacking the army and diverting funds into white flag factories.

Maybe the fire brigade could be sent to randomly spray water on non-burning houses, and the police could be told to focus on arresting people with overdue library books instead of armed criminals.

Binmen could just pick up random litter from the streets instead of the full-to-overflowing bins that will come to dominate our city streets.

We could all save a fortune if we spent practically no tax money on anything useful.

It's maybe not a bonkers idea, but it'll do until a really bonkers idea comes along. :eek: