More loss of health services in UK because too many people

originally posted by: Revolution9
It is not ridiculous ranting. It is "majority decision making".

Remember, the majority of people now think this way and they were right to worry and to try for something that could meet their needs better.

You are being intellectually thuggish. If you check what is being rationed it includes gluten free products. That means poor people will become ill just for not starving.

The food prices are so ridiculous now I am skinny because of it.

I hope that is cool for you because it isn't cool for me.

I've just done a very quick search under the words 'gluten free' on tesco.com. Biscuits, bread, pasta etc. are at prices comparable to the non gluten free alternatives. Get real. They were on prescription because 40 years ago they were scarce and expensive. Now they are neither.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: uncommitted

Might be far lower than prescription but remember many people are excempt from prescription charges.

I can see both arguments but it is unarguable that we will be making people pay for stuff they previously got as a health treatment from the NHS.

I don't disagree to an extent, but let's use that gluten free example. If I'm intolerant to gluten let's assume at the moment I can get gluten free products on prescription, and let's assume I'm liable for an exemption to prescription payments so I get them for free - that's what you are suggesting, yes? I get my food free because I'm gluten intolerant.

Now, let's assume I'm not gluten intolerant, but also liable for NHS prescription exemption, then I have to buy my non gluten free bread myself at almost exactly the same price.

Please tell me if you think that is logical?

It's less to do with immigration and more to do with the Age old Tory ethos of shrinking the state under any convenient guise (immigration, austerity etc...) On top of the direct underfunding to the NHS and rip off private sector contracts, social care has been cut so deeply that we have the elderly blocking beds in hospitals as they can't be sent home safely.

The NHS was set up when a greater proportion of the population were of working age.

Whether you like it or not the biggest problem with the NHS is that we're living longer. Life expectency when the NHS was formed was 66 for men and 71 for women. It is now 77 and 81 respectively. People are living for 10-11 years longer and are increasingly in need of resources each year they live.

There were far fewer healthcare options in 1948 as opposed to the myriad of highly expensive treatments which the NHS pays for now, many of which are cosmetic or through lifestyle choice.

A greater percentage of the people are above pension age and so are not paying taxes. Older people in general terms have greater health needs per head.

You can blame Johnny Foreigner all day, but it is the elderly who are the greatest drain in resources.

a reply to: PaddyInf

Excellent post.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: uncommitted

Might be far lower than prescription but remember many people are excempt from prescription charges.

I can see both arguments but it is unarguable that we will be making people pay for stuff they previously got as a health treatment from the NHS.

I don't disagree to an extent, but let's use that gluten free example. If I'm intolerant to gluten let's assume at the moment I can get gluten free products on prescription, and let's assume I'm liable for an exemption to prescription payments so I get them for free - that's what you are suggesting, yes? I get my food free because I'm gluten intolerant.

Now, let's assume I'm not gluten intolerant, but also liable for NHS prescription exemption, then I have to buy my non gluten free bread myself at almost exactly the same price.

Please tell me if you think that is logical?

That part i agree with.

On the other hand many of these products like gluten free are more expensive than standard equivalents, we are therefore making people pay for stuff that is a medical necessity rather than a lifestyle choice.

a reply to: PaddyInf

Absolutely. People often point to the increased NHS budget as evidence it isn't working and fail to take into account that it hasn't even close to kept pace with medical advancement or demographic change.

Would raise an issue with just two parts if your post.

The elderly certainly still do pay taxes. Those on a decent pension often pay more than working age people.

And virtually all medical conditions, with a few exceptions, are life style choices to some degree. It is just a matter of where you draw the line.

Develop breathing problems as a smoker, that may be a life style choice. Develop breathing problems as you live in a city, also a life style choice.

I know not what you were suggesting but aware that there is a belief amongst some that the NHS should somehow only treat the 'deserving'.

Simple fact is we pay far to little into healthcare in this country's. That is what causes the the issues with the NHS.

a reply to: uncommitted

The way I see it, if the government have the money to spend on things with which the people do not, by and large, agree, like more war for no reason as one example (and there is ALWAYS spare money around for that), if they have enough money coming in to let billions and billions of pounds worth of corporate tax fraud just...slide, then they can damned well pay for all the things they pay for in the NHS, and more besides, because that is the sort of thing I pay tax to achieve.

Any move which forces people into paying for more medications is something I would be against, anything that moves the NHS toward any privatisation, anything that costs service users money at point of issue, anything that is even slightly conservative needs to be kept away from our healthcare system, and preferably taken out the back and shot for the safety of the people.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Absolutely. Free at the point of use is core to the NHS. While there may be legitimate exceptions I would treat any proposed exceptions with scepticism at the best of times, and the current government is certainly not the best of times.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: uncommitted

Might be far lower than prescription but remember many people are excempt from prescription charges.

I can see both arguments but it is unarguable that we will be making people pay for stuff they previously got as a health treatment from the NHS.

I don't disagree to an extent, but let's use that gluten free example. If I'm intolerant to gluten let's assume at the moment I can get gluten free products on prescription, and let's assume I'm liable for an exemption to prescription payments so I get them for free - that's what you are suggesting, yes? I get my food free because I'm gluten intolerant.

Now, let's assume I'm not gluten intolerant, but also liable for NHS prescription exemption, then I have to buy my non gluten free bread myself at almost exactly the same price.

Please tell me if you think that is logical?

That part i agree with.

On the other hand many of these products like gluten free are more expensive than standard equivalents, we are therefore making people pay for stuff that is a medical necessity rather than a lifestyle choice.

If you had said that 10 - 15 years ago I would have agreed with you on the expense (but then I would also have said many products don't naturally contain gluten so nobody has to starve), but if I walk in a supermarket today then I would see the majority of gluten free products are no longer that much more than their non gluten free equivalent - pence, not pounds.

a reply to: TrueBrit

So you haven't got an opinion on the actual example, thanks.

As for privatisation, to the best of my knowledge it's still standing at something like 6%, and that includes services such as catering and cleaning. This sacred cow against privatisation on principle is a ridiculous one defended to the hilt by the same people who then complain about the NHS crumbling. The mid 1940's model certainly didn't project to an early 21st century one so people should stop pretending it does.

a reply to: uncommitted

Well gluten is just example. And while it probably doesn't cost that much more now compared to brand names there is not to my knowledge much in the way of budget range.

As we talking people who get free prescriptions in England and Wales then they may not be more Tesco value than Warburtons big toastie. (I apologize for the generalisation) .

In terms of your reply to Truebrit re privatisation my view is that as long as treatment remains free to use then it is less important if the actual provision is done exclusively by the NHS or using private companies.

However I am far from convinced that private companies do provide better value or service when it comes to healthcare.

a reply to: uncommitted

Yes I have an opinion on that.

It is bound up in the rest of my opinion on the health service. Everything that you could have gotten on the health services tab when I was born, should still be available. And for your information, yes, even the slightest bit of privatisation is wrong. Hell, I do not even agree that companies should be the ones doing research and development into drugs. That should also be a nationalised effort. All medical science should be, no matter which end of the industry you are talking about, whether it is front line care or laboratory work.

With specific regard to the issue of drugs available on prescription that cost more to deliver that way, the problem is that they cost more, not that they are available. The answer is to force the cost of those drugs down, by procuring them at a rate which is more beneficial to the taxpayer. If that proves impossible, then the cause of that difficulty must be removed.

a reply to: PaddyInf

You can blame Johnny Foreigner all day, but it is the elderly who are the greatest drain in resources.

Does the UK have an euthanasia program yet?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: uncommitted

Well gluten is just example. And while it probably doesn't cost that much more now compared to brand names there is not to my knowledge much in the way of budget range.

As we talking people who get free prescriptions in England and Wales then they may not be more Tesco value than Warburtons big toastie. (I apologize for the generalisation) .

In terms of your reply to Truebrit re privatisation my view is that as long as treatment remains free to use then it is less important if the actual provision is done exclusively by the NHS or using private companies.

However I am far from convinced that private companies do provide better value or service when it comes to healthcare.

I used gluten as an example as an example because the OP did to be honest. My point was more around what was sensible to deliver via an NHS prescription 40 or 50 years ago doesn't mean it still makes sense to do so from anyone's perspective.

As for privatisation, you fairly sum up my personal opinion, I wouldn't like to be ideologically blind to what may be the best solution. It's this comment from you that is interesting though (and perhaps others should consider it).....

However I am far from convinced that private companies do provide better value or service when it comes to healthcare.

Maybe, maybe not, too general a point to consider, but it's your use of the specific word healthcare from a privatisation perspective that's worth noting.

I used to work in the IT department in what is now known as Royal Mail. In the late '90's that company starting exploring what internal services were key to their core product, and which were not. as a result, a couple of years into this century, the majority of IT staff and services were outsourced to a different company. As a result, Royal Mail got the same level of IT support, typically for at least 10 years from many of the same staff, but at a lower cost with no administration overhead.

The point is, that could very easily be classed as privatisation - how could it not? But the core service of Royal Mail is a logistical one of moving items, whether they be parcels or letters, from one place to another in the most efficient manner. For the NHS they core service is quite clearly the provision of healthcare. Anything that isn't directly and explicitly part of the delivery of that core service that could potentially be managed at least to the same level of service but with a reduction in either direct or indirect costs should always be up for review - not to do so is just being ideologically blind.

a reply to: uncommitted

Everyone working toward the goal of delivering any of the services provided by government, should be employed directly by the government, which should ensure that so well is its infrastructure being run by its employees, that there is no benefit to private companies having any involvement with the process.

That goes for everything, from the armed services, which should have an arm which builds all our weapons, bullets, bombs and researches and develops these things in house, rather than ever involving any private enterprise at all, to all persons involved at any level of keeping our police service running, whether they work in the cafeteria or the CID. There should be no private companies involved in training, no private companies involved in material acquisition, no middle men, no nothing. That which is provided by the state should be managed by its employees, not by any private body, for any reason.

a reply to: Revolution9

Population growth of last decade driven by non-white British The 2.5 million increase in population over the last decade has been driven entirely by non-'white British' people migrating to the country and higher birth rates among ethnic minority groups, official figures have indicated.

this is what I am more concerned about, how long until they breed the English out of their own country? its a generation thing but easily out breed white people due to our lower birth rates.

if you want to go even deeper then if most of these are of the Muslim variety, then how long will it be until a vote comes up for Sharia law and Muslims out number others in voting. . .

other than that. Eat healthy do exercise and treat your kids like you treat your car. Put the right fuel in them and they have a healthy life span. Feed them sugar, fatty foods, MacDonald's then say good bye to your health. If you think about it, by taking you kid to McDonalds you a technically poisoning them at your own will. There is zero nutrition in that type of food.

when you make a appointment to see a doctor in the uk
they like you to make a separate appointment.
so that take up More time and money!?

wen I do see the doctor he is late most of the time.
as he has to go out to see people who can not go to see him.
over work't! yes.

some time a item on a prescription it cheaper
to buy at the chemist so why put it on in the first places?
is that recorded as a prescription item? wen you dont get it.
I bet it is. who gets that cash?

to much bureaucracy, to many Pen pushers.
That is whats is making are civilisation crumble.
and Yes we are coming to a end.
with a whimper. then it will be a bang.

a reply to: buddha

People on free prescriptions benefit from things like paracetamol being prescribed. I think thats why its done.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: uncommitted

Everyone working toward the goal of delivering any of the services provided by government, should be employed directly by the government, which should ensure that so well is its infrastructure being run by its employees, that there is no benefit to private companies having any involvement with the process.

That goes for everything, from the armed services, which should have an arm which builds all our weapons, bullets, bombs and researches and develops these things in house, rather than ever involving any private enterprise at all, to all persons involved at any level of keeping our police service running, whether they work in the cafeteria or the CID. There should be no private companies involved in training, no private companies involved in material acquisition, no middle men, no nothing. That which is provided by the state should be managed by its employees, not by any private body, for any reason.

That's a nice socialist utopia - and I don't mean that as a bad thing, but like most visions of utopia, it's not really realistic IMHO.