Helping the government save money

[Samdelila]

I think free prescriptions for people with certain conditions should be means tested. What else could the government cut to save money?

What a ridiculous post.

The OP is totally right. Healthcare is a joke in the UK. The sooner we dump these ludicrous socialist ideas that only serve to keep the feckless lazy and indolent in luxury, the better.

We need to dump the whole NHS - shame you can't sell it - and move to a much fairer system where people get the healthcare they can afford and deserve.

Thank God the US has someone in charge who will make this happen.

@Samdelila

Going after all uncollected tax inc council tax is the absolute first place I’d start!

from off shore and doggy millionaires to the cash in hand gardener and cake selling side hustlers.

@taxguru may know better than me but I read once that for every million spent on finding it you would get more back in uncollected tax. A double win in that it would also create more jobs but would be unpopular with both sides of the vote.

once we know that then start looking for saving,

The poor and disabled will suffer far more if the country runs out of money because the government is unable to either generate growth or cut spending.

Cut VAT or give other incentives for parents to send their children to private school, saving the government more than £100k per child.

Oops they blew that one.

Hi Donald.

Absolutely clueless, you clearly don't understand how the US system works...

I've worked in welfare benefits and veterans' rights for over a decade and have lobbied my various MPs, on one veterans related issue I had a question asked in the HOC and meetings with junior ministers with the relevant portfolios. So if you're not actually going to do anything proactive about these issues you feel so very strongly about, what was the point of your post to "find out ways government can save money" Just amounts to a riling exercise from where I'm sitting.

It makes no sense to me that it's cheaper for me to see a GP than get a haircut. I think GP appointments should be paid for. They differ from the rest of the NHS in that access to them is not triaged by a professional, so a rationing mechanism is necessary. I think this mechanism should be based on price rather than waiting times or appointment systems that don't work.

While (social) insurance is a good idea to pay for the kind of medical expenses most people can't afford, the low cost of GP appointments means they are not the sort of thing that should be covered by insurance.

(It might be OK for appointments to be cheaper or free for people on benefits though.)

I am genuinely interested in finding ways to cut spending - which the government needs to do. It’s not a riling exercise - I believe ordinary people should be allowed to express their views and to search for answers about matters of national importance.

You’d probably be better off trying to look at local community initiatives and grass roots efforts to improve health, fitness and wellbeing.

There are people that are professionals with the remit of looking at budgetary decisions on a national level. They have access to a wealth of data and modeling to allow them to understand the potential impact of cuts.

Pumping money into education, training and emerging sectors to secure jobs and industries for generations to come will probably have a more significant impact than saving some money on prescriptions.

Reforming healthcare to reduce waste is really important, but prescription charges almost certainly isn’t the right button to push.

And you're going to present it to your MP?

But you can surely see that the country would be far better off if people focused on earning £200k pa instead of taking £114 off people like your friend every year?

Means testing causes so much resentment, not to mention weird marginal cliff edges which encourage unintended behaviours (like people not going for promotions at work). It is also expensive to run, negating some or sometimes all savings made.

I hate the language of 'net contributors' and 'net takers', but if your friend is earning £200k she will be paying a lot into the system and I don't begrudge her a free prescription at all.

Sometimes it’s worth listening to the real lived experience of the little people. The professionals who look at budgetary decisions on a national level seem to be missing the rich kids getting laptops because they have dyslexia (despite the fact they already have laptops), the wealthy professionals getting free prescriptions even though they could easily afford to pay, the doctors prescribing expensive drugs that are not going to be used because it’s too complicated to figure out how to do it another way and the taxi drivers being paid to transport SEN students every day when the students only feel well enough to use their services once or twice a month. Perhaps the professionals are viewing things from too far a distance to be able to pick out these finer details.

The most straightforward way to means test it would be to restrict free prescriptions to people who are already eligible for benefits so as not incur any further means testing costs.

Agreed although not sure how much it would save.
I would get free prescriptions (age based):despite working almost full time and getting private pension as does DH.
My niece got free laptops etc at university despite from a wealthy family and expensive private school as dyslexic.
As for the US health system all very well if you are wealthy or have employers insurance although the deductibles can be crippling.

Except many people with serious conditions need whatever medication they need without any delay so as not to cause any exacerbation of the existing condition. Not understanding the potential knock on effect is potentially very damaging.

Is this a satire?

You understand that some people require multiple items to be able to stay alive? Working people, not always earning even average money. We cannot have a situation where people with manageable conditions are unnecessary spending time in hospital. The cost of that is way more than the prescription.

A lot of people don't have the luxury of getting to that age, especially with them working us like dogs to be able to pay bills..!!

I'm not going to belittle the MN thread that you seem to think is going to reshape the financial stability of the country, because, you do you. I am, however, genuinely curious as to why you are completely tied to the notion of aboloshing/means testing prescriptions. Have you watched a documentary?

And let's not forget, workhouses and treadmills for the serfs, and asylums for the disabled eh? 👍👍Because if this isn't a wind up you need serious help.

I can see that, yes, but how many people do you think could feasibly earn £200,000?

I was hoping to kickstart a discussion about different ways in which the country could save money but have got stuck in a bit of a loop continuously explaining that I do not think people who can afford to pay for their prescriptions should be given them for free. I haven’t seen a documentary about this - is there one?