Guess Who Has To Pay ?

M

mark

At the Start
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
215
Starting in April, NHS prescriptions in Wales are to be free of any charge whatsoever.

Living in England? Sorry, you will have to pay prescription charges at £6-65p per item. :(

Elderly? In need of care? Then emigrate to Scotland, where care charges are to be for free.

English students will now face bills of up to £3,000 a year.
Scottish students are not charged at all, not a single penny and Welsh students only £1,200 a year. :(

All this comes about because the treasury spending in England is some £6,700 per head, in Wales £7,666 and in Scotland they receive £8,266.

Who pays the differential? Why the English taxpayer!!! So cheer up. Work hard. Pay your taxes and the Scots and Welsh parliaments will spend it for you. :(

This is in no way a pop at the Welsh or the Scots, the idiots are housed in Westminster, If I were a young man again......Scotland here I come. :D
 
It sounds like that obscure public school of which a character acted by Peter Sellers was the headmaster, where the class A boys got priority while the class B boys got food.

The English are allowed to feel they are in charge but the Welsh and Scots get the goodies.
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Feb 12 2007, 12:29 PM
Well, surely the answer is simple? Drive to Cardiff every time you've got a prescription! :D
Click to expand...
That would cost me more in petrol Dom. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
 
And I would wager that because the prescription was issued in Engand, it would be invalid in Wales.
 
Originally posted by PDJ@Feb 12 2007, 04:05 PM
And I would wager that because the prescription was issued in Engand, it would be invalid in Wales.
Click to expand...
That is a very good point Paul....Yikes :(
 
Anyone who is really on the breadline doesn't have to pay for prescriptions - for anyone else, stop fecking moaning and pay for it. FFS, it's a few quid !

The NHS isn't a limitless fund ! Your £6-odd quid doesn't always cover the cost of your medicine - in may cases, far from it.

The Welsh and the Scots should have had more sense and not supported such an obvious vote catching ploy - there's no such thing as a free lunch or a 'free' prescription - you will be paying for it some other way, for sure.

It's amazing - this majority on this forum don't give a second thought to placing money on backing horses yet I can't believe how many of the self-same people moan on about buying decently produced food and paying for medicines when they're ill....
 
Our NI contributions were originally intended to cover all aspects of medical care. The idea of charging a nominal amount was to deter people who asked their GP for a prescription for aspirin and the like but it was guised under 'administrative costs'.

The prescription charge was never originally intended to cover the cost of the medicine.

While we're on the subject, there are gaping anomalies in the system. Anyone with certain conditions, regardless of how easily they can afford it, gets their medication free of charge. Others like myself, on certain other medication(s) for life, have to pay for it.

I am on six items per day just to keep me alive - and then there's the stuff I need when I'm actually ill - but none qualifies for free therefore I am in effect taxed for being unlucky with my general health. I manage to keep the costs down a wee bit by buying a prepayment certificate but it's still a hefty amount.

I know someone whose thyroid became slightly under-active and they get all their medicines for free. That's grossly unfair.
 
Originally posted by Desert Orchid@Feb 12 2007, 05:20 PM
Our NI contributions were originally intended to cover all aspects of medical care.
Click to expand...
I don't know what gave you that idea but it's totally wrong. The revenue from NI contributions was expected to roughly equate to spending on contributory benefits.
Initially, the most important of these were the State Retirement Pension and Unemployment Benefit.
 
Originally posted by BrianH+Feb 12 2007, 05:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BrianH @ Feb 12 2007, 05:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Desert Orchid@Feb 12 2007, 05:20 PM
Our NI contributions were originally intended to cover all aspects of medical care.
Click to expand...
I don't know what gave you that idea but it's totally wrong. The revenue from NI contributions was expected to roughly equate to spending on contributory benefits.
Initially, the most important of these were the State Retirement Pension and Unemployment Benefit. [/b][/quote]
I'll be happy to be proved wrong on that one but NI contributions were intended to cover the entire welfare state including health care.
 
Well, while we're on the subject of English taxes subsidising the enlightened policies of the Welsh and Scottish legislatures it's time for a reminder that council tax has been "adjusted" so that those in London and the home counties pay a greater contribution han total fairness would dictate in order to "assist with local spending in more deprived areas of the country".

And how delighted to help out we all are.
 
While I don't disagree in principle with your comment, Brian, it also has to be considered that the average income in those areas is also a lot higher - it's a clear Catch22 situation, with higher living costs driving higher wages - which came first?
 
Originally posted by Desert Orchid@Feb 12 2007, 05:32 PM
I'll be happy to be proved wrong on that one but NI contributions were intended to cover the entire welfare state including health care.
Click to expand...
Then let me make you happy. National Insurance as a system of taxes and related social security benefits has operated in the United Kingdom since its introduction in 1911.

The National Health Service came into being in 1946. It was to be funded from general taxation (which would have included revenue from NI, but also ncome tax, both PAYE and Schedule E, corporation tax, death duties. purchase tax etc).

When you consider the costs and that NI was already funding state pensions and "the dole" you'll see that to expect it to pay for public health care would have been madness.

It is a common misapprehension to assume that NI was supposed to fund the NHS. Similarly it is incorrect to assume, as many do, that Vehicle Excise Duty (VED), once known as Road Fund Licence, which is simply an annual tax on the use of motor vehicles on the public roads, was ever hypothecated for spending on roads
 
Originally posted by Songsheet@Feb 12 2007, 05:39 PM
While I don't disagree in principle with your comment, Brian, it also has to be considered that the average income in those areas is also a lot higher.
Click to expand...
As are the costs for providing council services, all of which are labour intensive.
 
From an online biography of Aneurin Bevan:
After the 1945 General Election, Clement Attlee, the new Labour Prime Minister, appointed Bevan as Minister of Health. In 1946 Parliament passed the revolutionary National Insurance Act. It instituted a comprehensive state health service, effective from 5th July 1948. The Act provided for compulsory contributions for unemployment, sickness, maternity and widows' benefits and old age pensions from employers and employees, with the government funding the balance.

The National Insurance Act created the structure of the Welfare State and after the passing of the National Health Service Act in 1948, people in Britain were provided with free diagnosis and treatment of illness, at home or in hospital, as well as dental and ophthalmic services.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Desert Orchid+Feb 12 2007, 05:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Desert Orchid @ Feb 12 2007, 05:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'll be happy to be proved wrong on that one but NI contributions were intended to cover the entire welfare state including health care.[/b]
Click to expand...


<!--QuoteBegin-Desert Orchid@Feb 12 2007, 06:20 PM
The Act provided for compulsory contributions for unemployment, sickness, maternity and widows' benefits and old age pensions from employers and employees, with the government funding the balance. [/quote]

Your quote has reinforced my point
 
There certainly are anomalies as DO says, my ex was on medication without which he would not have been able to function and he had to pay a fortune for prescriptions, whereas his boss had a sluggish thyroid and got *everything* for free.

Personally I am on a lower income than some people who are claiming benefits due to debts that I have from a previous relationship (incidentally, not through any fault of mine) and my OH being out of work at present. However, I still have to cough up for prescriptions. I was ill before Christmas and had to remain untreated until January as I didn't have any money to pay.

On the other hand, my condition is chronic and I don't doubt I've had my money's worth of drugs and operations from my National Insurance.

Not that I'd rather not pay for nothing and be healthy mind you :)
 
Back
Top