To wonder if perhaps the answer is just to stop paying?

[Resurgam2016]

Listening to the radio the other day and there was a South African lady who was having kidney dialysis in the UK because she couldn't afford it in her home country. Apparently in SA they don't fund this treatment for the over 65's. There just isn't the money. She was a medical tourist but that is another issue entirely.

So what if we contemplated something similar to help 'save' the NHS? No treatment for life limiting conditions over, say 70 years. No treatment for conditions that are not life saving (so fertility treatment or breast rebuilding for example). Making people (or their relatives) pay for all but the medical care they receive (so food etc.). It's a horrible thought but maybe the answer?

FYI I have a chronic illness so might well be 'caught' under these new rules. I'm just wondering if it is 'acceptable' in SA why we don't debate it here.

I think the answer is to pay more tax. Many countries spend more on healthcare than the UK.

I can't see no treatment for the over 70s being a prudent decision by anyone given the ageing population. I agree with the pp: we need to pay more taxes to fund the NHS.

So as soon as a person retires and is no longer paying NI (probably still paying tax) they are no longer eligible for NHS treatment. Let me just explain that to my 80 year old parents and MIL.

Errr no, that would be horrific. More tax, increase funding.

How would it 'save' the NHS? It would take it away from some of its most vulnerable users.

How about we don't give care to children born prematurely? That's just as stupid.

That would be grim.

So would we just leave them to die? Are they allowed pain relief?

And I wonder if you're either a journo or someone in politics, testing the waters, op?

@gleam so what if they said no treatment for premature babies from 28 weeks say?

I guess my question was really about how arbitrary cut offs are agreed and what is acceptable and what is unacceptable.

People always say pay more tax but generally they don't want to do that and don't seem to vote for parties who suggest it.

The tax we all pay needs to be better spent.

70 is not old at all by today's standards. We have a couple at our work still working. Most 70 somethings are quite sprightly but with the normal old age ailments. My mother is 74. I can't imagine what I'd say to a doctor who said that she couldn't have dialysis because she was 4 yrs too old.

Over-65 is a bit harsh, but I think at some point there does need to be a conversation about using medical advances to prolong life for the sheer sake.

The human body has a finite lifespan. I don't believe that people are necessarily living longer- rather that death is being dragged out in many cases.

It's not a financial issue tho- more a quality of life one.

Not acceptable.

Someone of 70 years old could potentially have another 20-30 years life ahead of them, people are living much longer than they used to.

Imagine that, "sorry, you've worked and paid tax all your life and now you need help we consider you too old, bye!"

OK @pleasantpheasant so tax aside on the assumption that the size of the NHS money pot will not change significantly what should we consider?

""I think the answer is to pay more tax. Many countries spend more on healthcare than the UK.""

I haven't seen/ heard an independent analysis that has come to the conclusion that the UK can't afford to run the NHS. Could you link if you have.

I'm not talking about the refusal to fund it, like many services, by this present Government.

If people have reports that have found, after researching spending that we have to change the Ethos of the NHS, as said, please link them.

When Government Cuts go as deep as they have, there is a ripple and that's what's happening, with the NHS and in the case of children, SS, is picking up. We'll also see that we've had to spend more across the criminal justice system.

I liked through the 80's, were a Tory Government had everyone convinced that we could no longer afford to run the country.

My Father left SA, believe me, you don't want to use that Continent as a blue print for policies.

That would indeed be grim.

Death panels anyone?

If only people that are young employed or rich can get treatment then that would have already killed the NHS.

Agreed with pp. the money paid in needs better spent. 80 million on paracetamol was it last year?

It would make more sense to stop funding it for 16 - 65, as these people can pay for treatment themselves from their earnings.

Either way it's a ridiculous and terrible idea.

A relative had life saving treatment in her early 70's. She is now nearly 90 and living completely independently with a great quality of life. Where else would we go with this. Do we decide that some people with disabilities are not worth treating.

Absolutely not. Healthcare should always be provided on the basis of need, not age. The answer is to increase funding and reduce wastage.

Don't worry. We'll soon have an extra £350 million a week for our NHS!

I'd rather stop or limit/means test the treatment of conditions caused by:
Obesity
Sport/dangerous hobbies
Smoking
Drinking
Heath tourism

than deny treatment based on age. It's funny how people cry "nanny state" when they are complaining about public health education campaigns, taxation/regulation of problematic behaviour but are conveniently quite happy to forget that expecting free treatment for the consequences of their behaviour is arguably the very essence of the nanny state!

Isn't that called euthanasia?

Increase funding, stop wastage, stop prescribing things like paracetomol, a policy of education (especially among the demographic of sites like this) to stop them running to the hospital with every little sniffle and stop the wastage in staffing as well. Not obviously, talking about doctors having to work 456 hours a week, but the money spent training people who then never take up posts, pull sickies etc.

Withdrawing treatment for those over 70 and no longer providing food to patients are both horrible ideas. Sorry. There are a lot of 70 years old capable of living fulfilling lives, why shouldn't they receive treatment? And good nutrition is an important part of patient recovery so relying on patients/relatives to provide food would be counterproductive, you'd end up with people eating nothing while in hospital or eating wholly inappropriate foods.

More taxes is the answer. It doesn't even need to be a massive increase in taxes. 2p in the pound would raise around £8-£10 billion a year which could be brought in as a specific 'healthcare tax' and ring fenced for the NHS.

Social care needs to be reformed. I'm not entirely sure what the answer is there. People often can't afford to care for relatives unable to care for themselves or they're not equipped to care for them (e.g., a spare room or adapted house). Carer's Allowance is a pitiful amount of money - for 24/7 care it works out as a whopping 18p an hour. The days of one adult being at home full time and therefore able to move Granny into the spare room to care for her when she starts ailing are long gone (I realise not all people in need of care are elderly, simply an example). There needs to be a short term solution to solve the immediate crisis and a long term solution to prevent it reaching breaking point again.

A streamlining of services would take the pressure off A&E. At our local hospital A&E are based in the same wing as the out of hours GP and the Minor Injuries walk-in. You get triaged on arrival and directed to whichever service is most appropriate for whatever you've arrived with. If the nurse doing the triage feels your problem can wait for a normal GP appointment then you won't be seen, you're directed to make an appointment with your own GP during normal hours.

Anything that is available over the the counter and costs less than the current prescription charge (£8?) shouldn't be available on prescription. It won't save a massive fortune but it'll help.