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?

People should just walk more. They will be healthier, won't need the NHS prescriptions, and the roads will have less wear and tear for more essential vehicle trips.

Do some litter picking, especially glass as that costs in flat tyres and A&E / vet trips. Unblock a local drain with a pokey stick if its safe.

Mm...except my husband can barely walk. Military service saw to that. Not really a one size fits all solution..

Because they check the people who say 'in receipt of benefits/on maternity leave' etc to make sure they are telling the truth.

A couple of times I have been written to to say I was fraudulently claiming a free prescription (I wasn't, they had made a mistake). This takes admin time, postage costs. Plus the admin time of checking all those who claim are eligible are actually eligible must be huge. That's the cost they are talking about, not the cost of taking payments

I would cancel all road building plans that are not already under construction.

The more subtle saving though not easily measurable would be to have the same time zone all year, either BST or GMT year round.

As for prescriptions, bus passes and other age related benefits, I would raise the age when you start to receive them.

So she’s paid more tax than most. That’s what she pays tax for…

You don't understand, people who are successful in selling their labour should not only pay the vast majority of taxes, they should also see no benefit from them on a personal level.

There should not be people on benefits that earn more than people who are working.

I started this thread because I would like to identify ways the government could save money.

How?

My point is that we are trying to identify ways for the government to save money -and not giving free prescriptions to people who can easily afford them seems like a good starting point to me.

I’m not on any benefits. I’m trying to identify ways the government could save money.

I was going to say this. We got a box of catheter equipment delivered the day after my dad was admitted to a hospice. It was all sealed and none of it had been touched (and some of it wasn’t stuff that went in or on the body eg a stand to hang the bags on). They wouldn’t take it back and told us to dispose of it.

Luckily there were some local people that I found on FB who were long term catherter users and were really happy to have it. No way could I have thrown it in the bin!

You clearly stated those on benefits who've already been means tested should just qualify. Next you are clutching your pearls about people being on benefits. Surely you read your own posts back?

Who is "we"...?

There is a cost - benefit analysis completed on many of these ideas. Means testing and the costs of implementing that and enforcing it does not equate a significant benefit so it isn’t done. Having systems for returning unused medical equipment is the same. It would be time consuming, labour intense and there would be risks that would need to be mitigated that would not be worth the small saving.

Decreasing waste and improve health to put less pressure on the system will save money.

Pension reforms are the other big saving.

And then we have removing barriers to work and encouraging productivity in the working population.

Id love to see how you got on on a disabled veterans' discussion site.....

The list is short but they then get every medication with the exemption. So I believe what people are saying (myself included) is could it be possible they receive this medication for free but pay for any unrelated medication.

But it's a solution to all the millions who are allergic to using their legs and wearing a coat. My neighbours drive a mile to the shops and back. I can do it in almost the same time on foot, cutting through the estate, as I'm not fannying about in a car park, junctions or traffic lights.

I know for a fact that those with war pension exemption certificates under 60 only get free medication for the service attributable conditions and have to pay for anything else, e.g antibiotics, any other prescription not listed on their SAC's.

I agree that there are people on benefits who don’t need them and changes need to be made to the system so those people are identified.

I wonder if my neighbours judge me for driving short distances. What they won't know, because I don't broadcast my medical condition, is that my car is really my wheelchair and I cannot walk long distances. That wouldn't be obvious to a casual observer though.

I would bloody love to walk everywhere. I did before I got ill.

I can actually see your point and concede that there should be exceptions.

Who is going to sit around determining what is unrelated and what isn't ? Sometimes it's not going to be clear cut at all so that would be an absolute faff to administrate

I think that we can avoid means testing people to see if they should qualify for free prescriptions by restricting eligibility to people who already qualify for benefits. This avoids paying extra for means testing. I also think we need to reform the benefits system so only those who really need benefits are entitled to them. These ideas do not contradict each other.

The system for free prescriptions really needs an overhaul. I am a high earner and get free prescriptions forever, just because I have no thyroid function. Not just thyroxine but everything else I need. I don't know why myxoedema means I am eligible for a medical exemption certificate but people with e.g. severe asthma don't.