What should be free but isn't

[mummyrabbitpeppapig]

I'll start. Sanitary protection and condoms.

So accepting we now understand that we mean publicly funded not absolutely free I think we have a big issue with many "essential" services that have been privatised. We are constantly told about the benefits of a free market and how it drives competition which should increase choice and drive down prices. However, for essentials such as water, gas, electricity and invariably public transport, you can never have true competition. First and foremost, the consumer does not have the fundamental choice of deciding "I just don't need that badly enough so I'm not going to bother". Second, the nature of most of these markets severely restricts how many suppliers can operate. End result is a sem-monopoly of essential services is created and the consumer gets gouged.

Cancer treatment!

"TitsalinaBumSquash

Yes CF medication, it's a fucking joke that prescriptions aren't free for cf when things like diabetes etc it is. I hate to think of my sons medication charges when he's an adult. "

£10.40 per month. 28p per day. Not a huge amount at all! The pre-payment certificate makes sure that nobody has to pay extortionate costs for prescriptions, no matter how extensive their medical needs are.

speech

I think a lot of these things should be free for people on low incomes/certain benefits.

Eg. sanitary protection should be available on prescription - those with medical exemption could then get it free. it's no issue for me to pay for it, but I hate to think of girls skipping school or struggling single mums having to choose between food and sanitary towels.

Cancer treatment is already free!

Sun lotion. Since having dc I've wondered why it isn't available for children on prescription. It is so important and costs a lot over the Spring-Summer seasons.

Have to agree that most degrees are good and useful, and I get tired of the attitude towards some subjects.

FWIW, I know several young people who have media degrees - a so called 'soft degree' and they are now working at the BBC and ITV on the writing and production team for some very popular tv programmes. One girl who is 25 is on £45K. 2 to 3 times more than some people I know twice her age.

I also know half a dozen people who left with on the last 5 years in similar jobs with similar salaries, and a great future in media and entertainment and performing arts.

There have been a few silly degree subjects of course, but most are valuable, and it pisses me off when they are poo-pooed.

As I said though, 'clearing' should be banned, and no-one should be allowed a free degree unless they have ALL grade C and above in their A levels.

'other peoples taxes?' You know, some people on here do actually work and pay taxes themselves! hmm

There was an interesting report recently, I think by the IFS, which shows the concentration of taxes - exactly where tax is paid and by whom. It's much more concentrated than you'd think. The reality is that, if you have a couple of children, then unless you are significantly into the higher tax bracket, you take out more from the system than you pay in tax. I am fully in agreement with this and believe that this is the foundation of a civilised society. But the fact that you pay tax, or even have, as the old saying goes, "paid in all your life", doesn't take away from the fact you are more likely to be supported by the taxpayer.

Which, as I've said, is fine. But then all the things proposed on this thread come at the expense of something else, because free at the point of use does not equal free. So all these things would come at the expense of another public service because their is a finite pot of money. So my answer to the original question is "nothing". I don't support the concept of universal benefits and think we would be much better off if money was targeted toward the neediest in our society. This is not a popular view though!

Mumsnet

.....there is, not their is - autocorrect going mad today.

Fucking asthma medication!!
Why is my health less important than a diabetic? I understand people can't help having diabetes BUT there are some who get it purely because they are overweight (my late GF was one of them) yet their medication is free?!
I've had asthma all my life and I certainly didn't do anything to cause it 😡

Sorry that sentence was a bit muddled.. It should read'

I also know half a dozen people who left in the last 5 years in similar jobs with similar salaries, and a great future in media and entertainment and performing arts.

and no-one should be allowed a free degree unless they have ALL grade C and above in their A levels.

...and with that, you take a middle class bung and make it more elitist.....

Speech!

Sanitary towels

Dental care

Glasses

Hospital parking

School meals

I think sanpro should be aligned with family planning and if you go to a clinic you can be issued with what you need for free.

Those who can afford to buy then would continue to but I like the idea that women can obtain sanpro even when in financial dire straits with no less stigma than someone who rocks up for free condoms.

In fact, the tax that's made from sanpro should be directly put into a pot for free sanpro for those who need it. I wouldn't mind paying a tax on mine if I knew it meant a woman in our country didn't have to suffer the indignity of not being able to leave her home when she's menstruating because she doesn't have money to buy sanpro.

Perhaps a "useful" degree should be determined by the proportion of students who are employed, or doing further study following graduation. i.e. it's useful if the students go on to contribute.

Bursaries for nurses and teachers, subsidised degrees for skills gap courses.

Conversely, I would be happy to pay for birth control, certain elective procedures, and an ad free version of mumsnet.

And yes I'm aware we already pay tax on sanpro...I'm just saying I wouldn't mind paying it if it helped those who couldn't buy it for themselves/their daughters.

and with that, you take a middle class bung and make it more elitist.....

So only middle class people get decent A levels?

Don't talk shite.

Sanpro. All Sanpro.
Homeless women don't own a washing machine. What are they supposed to do, wash their washable pads in the River Thames?

There's a number of other things that I'd like to be free, some of which currently are where I live:

• glasses (used to be paid for by health insurance in Germany, aren't anymore. They aren't luxury goods!)
• university (to my knowledge free again in Germany, thankfully, there's some common sense here)
• WiFi in public spaces. It's a nice extra.
• medication/treatment for non-life-threatening diseases. Do we really want to live in a world where poor people have to walk around with disgusting skin conditions? Not even the rich really want that, I'm sure.

I think a lot of these things should be free for people on low incomes/certain benefits.

But then you get an even worse poverty trap: if enough becomes free then it's not worth earning any/more money. There is quite draconian means testing in Italy. What is happening is that those who are "poor" are actually better off than those who have a little, with free dentistry, doctors' appointments, X-rays (you have to pay in Italy), school meals, nursery, etc etc. If you are on a low income with dcs and bad teeth, you will end up much worse off than your counterpart who is not earning at all.

Yeah wifi should be free.

perhaps a "useful" degree should be determined by the proportion of students who are employed, or doing further study following graduation. i.e. it's useful if the students go on to contribute.

Ya think @YBR?

Because I know more people in great careers who got so called soft degrees than people who have 'academic' degrees. As I said, I know over half a dozen people in media and entertainment with great jobs (who got so called soft degrees.) And I know several people who got academic degrees who are working in Starbucks next to a bunch of GCSE failures. So your idea is not the way to go imo.