http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31778

Petition against the removal of additional tax allowances for pensioners.

Vote early, vote often :-)

Cheers

Daver R

--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On 14/02/2013 11:40, David WE Roberts wrote:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31778

Petition against the removal of additional tax allowances for pensioners.

Vote early, vote often :-)


Why do you support ageist policies?

Perhaps a petition for the removal of any age related benefits and
allowances is called for.

On Feb 14, 11:40*am, "David WE Roberts" wrote:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31778

Petition against the removal of additional tax allowances for pensioners.

Why would I want to do that?

It will do absolutely nothing to help those in real need.

All it will do is give more to those who already have enough to
benefit from said tax allowances.

MBQ

On 14/02/2013 11:40, David WE Roberts wrote:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31778

Petition against the removal of additional tax allowances for pensioners.

Vote early, vote often :-)

If you are canvassing for votes against the removal of additional tax
allowances, it might be a good idea to explain why you think that the
increase in personal allowances for those over 65 does not adequately
compensate for them.

Colin Bignell

On 14/02/2013 12:22, Man at B&Q wrote:
On Feb 14, 11:40 am, "David WE Roberts" wrote:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31778

Petition against the removal of additional tax allowances for pensioners.

Why would I want to do that?

It will do absolutely nothing to help those in real need.

All it will do is give more to those who already have enough to
benefit from said tax allowances.

How much do people need to get in order to benefit from the Age Allowance?

On 14/02/2013 20:16, GB wrote:
On 14/02/2013 12:22, Man at B&Q wrote:
On Feb 14, 11:40 am, "David WE Roberts" wrote:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31778

Petition against the removal of additional tax allowances for
pensioners.

Why would I want to do that?

It will do absolutely nothing to help those in real need.

All it will do is give more to those who already have enough to
benefit from said tax allowances.

How much do people need to get in order to benefit from the Age Allowance?


Why not sign http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32346 instead?

On 14/02/2013 20:23, dennis@home wrote:
On 14/02/2013 20:16, GB wrote:
On 14/02/2013 12:22, Man at B&Q wrote:
On Feb 14, 11:40 am, "David WE Roberts" wrote:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31778

Petition against the removal of additional tax allowances for
pensioners.

Why would I want to do that?

It will do absolutely nothing to help those in real need.

All it will do is give more to those who already have enough to
benefit from said tax allowances.

How much do people need to get in order to benefit from the Age
Allowance?


Why not sign http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32346 instead?


Good idea. I have done that.

On 14/02/2013 20:26, GB wrote:
On 14/02/2013 20:23, dennis@home wrote:


8


Why not sign http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32346 instead?


Good idea. I have done that.

Here's one for harry to sign.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/36402

On 14/02/2013 13:13, Nightjar wrote:
On 14/02/2013 11:40, David WE Roberts wrote:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31778

Petition against the removal of additional tax allowances for pensioners.

Vote early, vote often :-)

If you are canvassing for votes against the removal of additional tax
allowances, it might be a good idea to explain why you think that the
increase in personal allowances for those over 65 does not adequately
compensate for them.

Colin Bignell


I agree. I suppose some would argue that this doesn't maintain the
differential between pensioners and non-pensioners. But I'm not sure
exactly what the case for a differential is.

Personally, I'd rather have it as an increased personal allowance for
everyone. That way, it doesn't get clawed back when my total pension
income exceeds a certain threshold.

I would also support means testing things like bus passes and winter
fuel allowance. Not so sure about prescriptions and eye test. Older
people tend to have a greater need for these. Free dental treatment
would be good, too.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 14/02/13 20:39, Roger Mills wrote:
On 14/02/2013 13:13, Nightjar wrote:
On 14/02/2013 11:40, David WE Roberts wrote:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31778

Petition against the removal of additional tax allowances for
pensioners.

Vote early, vote often :-)

If you are canvassing for votes against the removal of additional tax
allowances, it might be a good idea to explain why you think that the
increase in personal allowances for those over 65 does not adequately
compensate for them.

Colin Bignell


I agree. I suppose some would argue that this doesn't maintain the
differential between pensioners and non-pensioners. But I'm not sure
exactly what the case for a differential is.

Personally, I'd rather have it as an increased personal allowance for
everyone. That way, it doesn't get clawed back when my total pension
income exceeds a certain threshold.

I would also support means testing things like bus passes and winter
fuel allowance. Not so sure about prescriptions and eye test. Older
people tend to have a greater need for these. Free dental treatment
would be good, too.

Useless blatherings. Us over 60s know we will have our pensions removed,
our houses stolen by mansion taxes, our savings devalued and used to
employ third world carers to not look after us before being put on a
care pathway and finally turned into SagaBurgers for young labour votahs.

The only question is how many of the idle workshy *******s we can take
with us.

My euthanasia shall not go unaccompanied!

Pass the Ammonium Nitrate Jeeves. I have one final message to deliver to
the House. While the balance of my mind is sufficiently disturbed by the
last of the Clery '46....


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 14/02/2013 20:39, Roger Mills wrote:
On 14/02/2013 13:13, Nightjar wrote:
On 14/02/2013 11:40, David WE Roberts wrote:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31778

Petition against the removal of additional tax allowances for
pensioners.

Vote early, vote often :-)

If you are canvassing for votes against the removal of additional tax
allowances, it might be a good idea to explain why you think that the
increase in personal allowances for those over 65 does not adequately
compensate for them.

Colin Bignell


I agree. I suppose some would argue that this doesn't maintain the
differential between pensioners and non-pensioners. But I'm not sure
exactly what the case for a differential is.

Personally, I'd rather have it as an increased personal allowance for
everyone. That way, it doesn't get clawed back when my total pension
income exceeds a certain threshold.

I would also support means testing things like bus passes and winter
fuel allowance. Not so sure about prescriptions and eye test. Older
people tend to have a greater need for these. Free dental treatment
would be good, too.

I suspect that means testing bus passes would probably cost more than it
saves. They are a bit of a novelty when you first get them, after which
the disadvantages of using public transport outweigh the benefits of
using it for free, so it is probable that only those who really need
them actually use them to any extent. I wouldn't miss the winter fuel
allowance, but again, I'm not sure that a lot of the claimed savings
from means testing it would not just go into administering the scheme.

Prescriptions might as well be free for everybody; only 10% of people
actually pay for them and I rather doubt that covers the administrative
costs of collecting the fees and checking that people claiming exemption
are actually entitled to it.

Eye tests should not only be free but for anybody over 60 holding a
driving licence compulsory. Many people who have never needed glasses
before can go for years without realising that their eyesight is
deteriorating as they age.

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 14/02/2013 20:39, Roger Mills wrote:
On 14/02/2013 13:13, Nightjar wrote:
On 14/02/2013 11:40, David WE Roberts wrote:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31778

Petition against the removal of additional tax allowances for
pensioners.

Vote early, vote often :-)

If you are canvassing for votes against the removal of additional tax
allowances, it might be a good idea to explain why you think that the
increase in personal allowances for those over 65 does not adequately
compensate for them.

Colin Bignell


I agree. I suppose some would argue that this doesn't maintain the
differential between pensioners and non-pensioners. But I'm not sure
exactly what the case for a differential is.

Personally, I'd rather have it as an increased personal allowance for
everyone. That way, it doesn't get clawed back when my total pension
income exceeds a certain threshold.

I would also support means testing things like bus passes and winter
fuel allowance. Not so sure about prescriptions and eye test. Older
people tend to have a greater need for these. Free dental treatment
would be good, too.

I suspect that means testing bus passes would probably cost more than it
saves. They are a bit of a novelty when you first get them, after which
the disadvantages of using public transport outweigh the benefits of using
it for free, so it is probable that only those who really need them
actually use them to any extent. I wouldn't miss the winter fuel
allowance, but again, I'm not sure that a lot of the claimed savings from
means testing it would not just go into administering the scheme.

Prescriptions might as well be free for everybody; only 10% of people
actually pay for them and I rather doubt that covers the administrative
costs of collecting the fees and checking that people claiming exemption
are actually entitled to it.

Eye tests should not only be free but for anybody over 60 holding a
driving licence compulsory.

Ours are compulsory for ALL driving licenses,
done where you get the license so basically
included in the cost of the license.

We also have free eye tests every 2 years, and
they do a lot more than driving license test.

Many people who have never needed glasses before can go for years without
realising that their eyesight is deteriorating as they age.

On 14/02/2013 22:28, Nightjar wrote:
On 14/02/2013 20:39, Roger Mills wrote:
On 14/02/2013 13:13, Nightjar wrote:
On 14/02/2013 11:40, David WE Roberts wrote:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31778

Petition against the removal of additional tax allowances for
pensioners.

Vote early, vote often :-)

If you are canvassing for votes against the removal of additional tax
allowances, it might be a good idea to explain why you think that the
increase in personal allowances for those over 65 does not adequately
compensate for them.

Colin Bignell


I agree. I suppose some would argue that this doesn't maintain the
differential between pensioners and non-pensioners. But I'm not sure
exactly what the case for a differential is.

Personally, I'd rather have it as an increased personal allowance for
everyone. That way, it doesn't get clawed back when my total pension
income exceeds a certain threshold.

I would also support means testing things like bus passes and winter
fuel allowance. Not so sure about prescriptions and eye test. Older
people tend to have a greater need for these. Free dental treatment
would be good, too.

I suspect that means testing bus passes would probably cost more than it
saves. They are a bit of a novelty when you first get them, after which
the disadvantages of using public transport outweigh the benefits of
using it for free, so it is probable that only those who really need
them actually use them to any extent. I wouldn't miss the winter fuel
allowance, but again, I'm not sure that a lot of the claimed savings
from means testing it would not just go into administering the scheme.

Prescriptions might as well be free for everybody; only 10% of people
actually pay for them and I rather doubt that covers the administrative
costs of collecting the fees and checking that people claiming exemption
are actually entitled to it.


Govt claims 88% don't pay - I would question that. And anecdotally at
least people don't use prescription medicine because of the cost.

Eye tests should not only be free but for anybody over 60 holding a
driving licence compulsory. Many people who have never needed glasses
before can go for years without realising that their eyesight is
deteriorating as they age.


It's tricky - overall I don't think means testing is a good idea, for
reasons ranging from admin cost to stigma. I'd like to think people who
don't need or use a benefit hand it back, but then I like to think a lot
of things ;-)

Rob

On 15/02/2013 08:14, RJH wrote:


Govt claims 88% don't pay - I would question that. And anecdotally
at least people don't use prescription medicine because of the cost.


The saga of prescription charges goes on!

If you are even slightly financially OK but medically not OK, and
subject to NHS prescription charges, it is likely worth capping your
outgoings by getting a Prescription Prepayment Certificate (PPC) at £104
a year. (Do government "don't pay" figures include PPC purchasers? After
all, they do not pay prescription by prescription.)

I take one medicine only and the NHS "cost" of that medicine is
marginally over £12 a year (one lot month). And this seems to correlate
with costs in other countries such as Spain, I am told, where it is an
over-the-counter medicine.

However, I and everyone else on this medicine qualify for a Medical
Exemption Certificate (Medex), so actually pay nothing. (And have the
benefit of not then paying for any other prescriptions.)

If I had to pay the full prescription charge of £7.65 twelve times a
year, I would be being ripped off by the system. (That is, being charged
almost £80 more than the NHS is charged for the medicine.)

Because of the system we have, I do not have the option of buying my own
as the charges for doing so are even more. Private prescriptions alone
are often expensive and yet a prescription is mandatory. And there is no
possibility of buying at anything like the NHS or Spanish prices. (I
base this on having seen the prices some people have been charged for
having private prescriptions filled for this medicine - though maybe
they did not shop around?)

It could actually be less expensive to purchase an equivalent from
abroad than to pay UK prescription charges. Without a prescription.
Unfortunately, most internet medicine suppliers relate their prices to
USA domestic prices. And this medicine is anomalously expensive in the
USA (almost certainly branding issues, etc.). But if I knew someone
willing in any of several European countries, they could pop it in an
envelope for me and I would pay much less than NHS prescription charges.

Considering the importance of some medicines, the idea that people have
to question which one(s) they might be able to afford this week or
month, even when the NHS costs are peanuts, is crazy and unfair.

--
Rod

On 15/02/2013 08:14, RJH wrote:
On 14/02/2013 22:28, Nightjar wrote:
....
Prescriptions might as well be free for everybody; only 10% of people
actually pay for them and I rather doubt that covers the administrative
costs of collecting the fees and checking that people claiming exemption
are actually entitled to it.


Govt claims 88% don't pay - I would question that.

A 2008 survey gave the average at the 90% I quoted. However, for some
groups, such as mental health patients, it is as low as 81%.

And anecdotally at
least people don't use prescription medicine because of the cost.

I would have thought that the majority of people for whom that would be
a problem should qualify for free prescriptions.

Eye tests should not only be free but for anybody over 60 holding a
driving licence compulsory. Many people who have never needed glasses
before can go for years without realising that their eyesight is
deteriorating as they age.


It's tricky - overall I don't think means testing is a good idea, for
reasons ranging from admin cost to stigma. I'd like to think people who
don't need or use a benefit hand it back, but then I like to think a lot
of things ;-)

I don't think there is any mechanism for me to hand back the winter fuel
allowance. It is easier to give the same amount to charity.

Colin Bignell

On 15/02/2013 09:08, Nightjar wrote:
On 15/02/2013 08:14, RJH wrote:

And anecdotally at
least people don't use prescription medicine because of the cost.

I would have thought that the majority of people for whom that would be
a problem should qualify for free prescriptions.


Majority maybe, but IIRC, Jobseekers flat rate does not, but
income-related does - and there are many cracks in the systems.

--
Rod

On 15/02/2013 08:51, polygonum wrote:
On 15/02/2013 08:14, RJH wrote:


Govt claims 88% don't pay - I would question that. And anecdotally
at least people don't use prescription medicine because of the cost.


The saga of prescription charges goes on!

If you are even slightly financially OK but medically not OK, and
subject to NHS prescription charges, it is likely worth capping your
outgoings by getting a Prescription Prepayment Certificate (PPC) at £104
a year. (Do government "don't pay" figures include PPC purchasers? After
all, they do not pay prescription by prescription.)

It is whether you pay at all, not whether you pay prescription by
prescription.

I take one medicine only and the NHS "cost" of that medicine is
marginally over £12 a year (one lot month). And this seems to correlate
with costs in other countries such as Spain, I am told, where it is an
over-the-counter medicine.

However, I and everyone else on this medicine qualify for a Medical
Exemption Certificate (Medex), so actually pay nothing. (And have the
benefit of not then paying for any other prescriptions.)

If I had to pay the full prescription charge of £7.65 twelve times a
year, I would be being ripped off by the system. (That is, being charged
almost £80 more than the NHS is charged for the medicine.)...

Having to get a prescription every month is a NICE recommendation, to
reduce the cost to the NHS from medicine supplied to people who die
before using it all. Some GPs will still give a three month prescription.

Colin Bignell

Roger Mills wrote:

I would also support means testing things like bus passes and winter
fuel allowance.

Though I have benefited, I don't think the original decision to
introduce these at 60 for everybody, instead of at state pension
age, was right.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

On 15/02/2013 09:12, polygonum wrote:
On 15/02/2013 09:08, Nightjar wrote:
On 15/02/2013 08:14, RJH wrote:

And anecdotally at
least people don't use prescription medicine because of the cost.

I would have thought that the majority of people for whom that would be
a problem should qualify for free prescriptions.


Majority maybe, but IIRC, Jobseekers flat rate does not, but
income-related does - and there are many cracks in the systems.

My point is that there is probably not a huge number of people waiting
in the wings who would suddenly start to get prescriptions were they to
be made free.

Colin Bignell

On 15/02/2013 09:21, Nightjar wrote:
On 15/02/2013 08:51, polygonum wrote:
On 15/02/2013 08:14, RJH wrote:


Govt claims 88% don't pay - I would question that. And anecdotally
at least people don't use prescription medicine because of the cost.


The saga of prescription charges goes on!

If you are even slightly financially OK but medically not OK, and
subject to NHS prescription charges, it is likely worth capping your
outgoings by getting a Prescription Prepayment Certificate (PPC) at £104
a year. (Do government "don't pay" figures include PPC purchasers? After
all, they do not pay prescription by prescription.)

It is whether you pay at all, not whether you pay prescription by
prescription.

I take one medicine only and the NHS "cost" of that medicine is
marginally over £12 a year (one lot month). And this seems to correlate
with costs in other countries such as Spain, I am told, where it is an
over-the-counter medicine.

However, I and everyone else on this medicine qualify for a Medical
Exemption Certificate (Medex), so actually pay nothing. (And have the
benefit of not then paying for any other prescriptions.)

If I had to pay the full prescription charge of £7.65 twelve times a
year, I would be being ripped off by the system. (That is, being charged
almost £80 more than the NHS is charged for the medicine.)...

Having to get a prescription every month is a NICE recommendation, to
reduce the cost to the NHS from medicine supplied to people who die
before using it all. Some GPs will still give a three month prescription.

Colin Bignell


I actually get my prescription every 56 days. But many others on the
same medicine and equally stable have been stuck onto 28 day prescriptions.

NICE left a large gap to allow for long-term, stable medicines to be
prescribed on a longer period basis. But my PCT's interpretation was
near enough a blanket ban on 28-day prescribing. And yet the MHRA has
only last month issued specific advice that prescriptions for this
medicine that it positively should be on an 84-day basis. Given the cost
of handling two extra prescriptions (i.e. three one month prescriptions
as recommended for many things by NICE and as endorsed by my PCT,
against one three month prescription) is far greater than the cost of
the medicine, the cost saving claim is ludicrous.

And my PCT was utterly unable to explain how to translate mandatory
28-day prescribing into advice for "take as needed" medicines. Not even
to say that they were obviously not covered.

--
Rod

Jethro_uk wrote:

I would be curious if there's been any research (as opposed to Daily Mail
headlines) as to whether people who don't pay charges are any more
wasteful than those who do.

You should meet my mid-80s mother-in-law.

I don't really know the reason why - it might be
something to do with WWII, but I'm not sure - but she has to have a
'stock' of everything. In the days when she could get out and do her
own shopping, it included having a 'stock' of supermarket plastic
bags. We estimate she had 20,000 of them, before SWMBO threw them
out. She won't eat food in her freezer (because it's her 'stock') so
lives on sandwiches. She's been prescribed a medicated cream for a
skin condition, but won't use it as she doesn't have a 'stock' of
it, so saves it up. No 'stock' item is ever used for anything.

But one day SWMBO came across her 'stock' of medication - most of it
was out of date, and there was enough to fill a big bin liner. SWMBO
costed it as being over £1000-worth of medications, all useless and
wasted. and that was dished out on a monthly-prescription basis.
--

Kim Bolton

Nightjar :
Having to get a prescription every month is a NICE recommendation, to
reduce the cost to the NHS from medicine supplied to people who die
before using it all.

That might be a good reason for not allowing the drugs to be collected
more than a month in advance. But there's no reason not to issue a one-
year prescription with monthly collections. This would make life easier
for the doctor and the patient. Of course the prescription period
wouldn't exceed the review period. I believe similar systems operate in
some other countries.

--
Mike Barnes

"GB" wrote in message
...
On 14/02/2013 12:22, Man at B&Q wrote:
On Feb 14, 11:40 am, "David WE Roberts" wrote:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31778

Petition against the removal of additional tax allowances for
pensioners.

Why would I want to do that?

It will do absolutely nothing to help those in real need.

All it will do is give more to those who already have enough to
benefit from said tax allowances.

How much do people need to get in order to benefit from the Age Allowance?

More that the normal nil tax band.

It has been presented wrongly by a PP, it isn't a benefit only received by
well off pensioners, it is a benefit received by pensioners receiving the
equivalent of "minimum wage", it is withdrawn from better off pensioners.

tim

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 14/02/2013 13:13, Nightjar wrote:
On 14/02/2013 11:40, David WE Roberts wrote:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31778

Petition against the removal of additional tax allowances for
pensioners.

Vote early, vote often :-)

If you are canvassing for votes against the removal of additional tax
allowances, it might be a good idea to explain why you think that the
increase in personal allowances for those over 65 does not adequately
compensate for them.

Colin Bignell


I agree. I suppose some would argue that this doesn't maintain the
differential between pensioners and non-pensioners. But I'm not sure
exactly what the case for a differential is.

Personally, I'd rather have it as an increased personal allowance for
everyone. That way, it doesn't get clawed back when my total pension
income exceeds a certain threshold.

I would also support means testing things like bus passes and winter fuel
allowance.

Bus passes tend to be self-means tested, I.e the better off pensioners who
drive don't use them extensively.

means testing the fuel allowance would cost more that it saved unless you
means tested it away from 80-90% of recipients. In which case it would be
better abolished IMHO

tim

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 14/02/13 20:39, Roger Mills wrote:
On 14/02/2013 13:13, Nightjar wrote:
On 14/02/2013 11:40, David WE Roberts wrote:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31778

Petition against the removal of additional tax allowances for
pensioners.

Vote early, vote often :-)

If you are canvassing for votes against the removal of additional tax
allowances, it might be a good idea to explain why you think that the
increase in personal allowances for those over 65 does not adequately
compensate for them.

Colin Bignell


I agree. I suppose some would argue that this doesn't maintain the
differential between pensioners and non-pensioners. But I'm not sure
exactly what the case for a differential is.

Personally, I'd rather have it as an increased personal allowance for
everyone. That way, it doesn't get clawed back when my total pension
income exceeds a certain threshold.

I would also support means testing things like bus passes and winter
fuel allowance. Not so sure about prescriptions and eye test. Older
people tend to have a greater need for these. Free dental treatment
would be good, too.

Useless blatherings. Us over 60s know we will have our pensions removed,
our houses stolen by mansion taxes,

There's as simple solution to that

Sell the damn thing and move somewhere smaller

I never understand the attitude of pensioners who insist on living in
poverty in a million pound house, (and then complain about it!)

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 14/02/2013 20:39, Roger Mills wrote:
On 14/02/2013 13:13, Nightjar wrote:
On 14/02/2013 11:40, David WE Roberts wrote:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31778

Petition against the removal of additional tax allowances for
pensioners.

Vote early, vote often :-)

If you are canvassing for votes against the removal of additional tax
allowances, it might be a good idea to explain why you think that the
increase in personal allowances for those over 65 does not adequately
compensate for them.

Colin Bignell


I agree. I suppose some would argue that this doesn't maintain the
differential between pensioners and non-pensioners. But I'm not sure
exactly what the case for a differential is.

Personally, I'd rather have it as an increased personal allowance for
everyone. That way, it doesn't get clawed back when my total pension
income exceeds a certain threshold.

I would also support means testing things like bus passes and winter
fuel allowance. Not so sure about prescriptions and eye test. Older
people tend to have a greater need for these. Free dental treatment
would be good, too.

I suspect that means testing bus passes would probably cost more than it
saves. They are a bit of a novelty when you first get them, after which
the disadvantages of using public transport outweigh the benefits of using
it for free, so it is probable that only those who really need them
actually use them to any extent. I wouldn't miss the winter fuel
allowance, but again, I'm not sure that a lot of the claimed savings from
means testing it would not just go into administering the scheme.

Prescriptions might as well be free for everybody; only 10% of people
actually pay for them and I rather doubt that covers the administrative
costs of collecting the fees and checking that people claiming exemption
are actually entitled to it.

No-one checks, it's self policed and your chances of being caught if you lie
are minimal

tim

On 15/02/2013 09:48, Jethro_uk wrote:


I still don't understand why they can't have a system whereby medicines
specifically needed for lifelong conditions are exempt, but occasional
medicines are still charged for. I have glaucoma - 4 types of eye drops
for life. My wife has MS. 3 tablets plus daily plus a weekly injection
for life. All of those should be exempt. Then, if we need an odd course
of antibiotics (for example) we still pay.

They already exempt some conditions, so it wouldn't be a great stretch.

Personally I think prescription charges are a good idea - they highlight
that nothing is "free", and hopefully discourage some waste.

I would be curious if there's been any research (as opposed to Daily Mail
headlines) as to whether people who don't pay charges are any more
wasteful than those who do.

In my case, the condition being treated is very often associated with
numerous other health issues - eyes, heart, skin, breathing, digestion,
joints, mental, dental, hearing, hair, and on and on. So people who have
it frequently end up on multiple medicines but all from one source. (I
am lucky, seem to do fine on basic treatment.)

What I certainly agree with is the idea that those on lifelong
conditions should not have to pay for them. It is trying to formulate a
sensible policy that includes that but does not work against other
things that is difficult.

One of the things that I was thinking earlier was that we have a sort of
compact with the government. They take to themselves the power to
restrict access to many substances, on the basis that if it is agreed we
need them, we can get hold of them. Setting up a system in which people
cannot afford them due to inflated prices (whether as NHS prescriptions
or private prescriptions) questions the very basis of that compact.

The biggest waste we have seen on medicines is first prescription of
something which may, or may not agree. I was given Omeprazole - can't
remember pack quantity - probably 28. Current NHS cost £1.62 or £1.81 so
hardly expensive. Only accepted from GP because he insisted it should
help (I flatly disagreed but said I would try to keep in with him). One
tablet made me vomit - a recognised side-effect. So after one tablet,
the rest are waste.

Partner has had numerous things offered e.g. a pain medicine that costs
around £40 to £60 for the package (about one month supply). She too
found it intolerable.

There is also now a fairly substantial semi-official industry supplying
vitamin D to the NHS. You can easily buy a one year supply of 5000 IU D3
capsules for about £10 on the internet (e.g. iherb.com). But NHS manage
to source this:

Fultium-D3® (Internis) Prescription only medicine

Capsules, colecalciferol 20 micrograms (800 units), net price 30-cap
pack= £3.60.

Not only very much more expensive, but with the surprise bonus of
potentially triggering peanut allergy.

--
Rod

In article ,
Roger Mills wrote:
I would also support means testing things like bus passes and winter
fuel allowance. Not so sure about prescriptions and eye test. Older
people tend to have a greater need for these. Free dental treatment
would be good, too.

Older people tend to feel the cold more - hence the winter fuel payment.

As regards bus passes, it's difficult to calculate what they really do
cost, as PT usually has plenty spare capacity outside rush hour.

--
*The severity of the itch is proportional to the reach *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
I suspect that means testing bus passes would probably cost more than it
saves. They are a bit of a novelty when you first get them, after which
the disadvantages of using public transport outweigh the benefits of
using it for free, so it is probable that only those who really need
them actually use them to any extent. I wouldn't miss the winter fuel
allowance, but again, I'm not sure that a lot of the claimed savings
from means testing it would not just go into administering the scheme.

Living in London, I find my Freedom pass very useful and it gets used
several times a week. For journeys where it's more convenient for me to
use PT than either of my cars. ;-) So to me it's really just a perk.
However, lots get 'perks' of one sort or another from the state. In my
case the Freedom pass costs the state very little in real terms as I only
use it outside rush hour when there is spare capacity on PT. I'd be happy
if they changed it back to only allowing it to be used outside rush hour.

--
*Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Chris J Dixon wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:

I would also support means testing things like bus passes and winter
fuel allowance.

Though I have benefited, I don't think the original decision to
introduce these at 60 for everybody, instead of at state pension
age, was right.

At the time they were introduced, many of the incurable optimists in
government were talking about having state retirement age at 60 for
everyone. How things change...

--
*Plagiarism saves time *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 15/02/2013 10:34, Mike Barnes wrote:
Nightjar :
Having to get a prescription every month is a NICE recommendation, to
reduce the cost to the NHS from medicine supplied to people who die
before using it all.

That might be a good reason for not allowing the drugs to be collected
more than a month in advance. But there's no reason not to issue a one-
year prescription with monthly collections. This would make life easier
for the doctor and the patient. Of course the prescription period
wouldn't exceed the review period. I believe similar systems operate in
some other countries.

There is now an electronic prescription mechanism which seems to allow
this or something similar. And, at that level, it is a good idea. (The
GPs only want to check levels once a year, and that mainly because they
get an extra payment for doing so. So why six or twelve prescriptions?)

However, I do NOT like the way all these new prescription systems are
tying you to a single pharmacy. There are three makers of my medicine in
the UK. Many people report that the differences are significant despite
them supposedly being therapeutically identical. There have often been
supply difficulties. And when there are, I want the freedom to go round
all local pharmacists, and internet pharmacies, to keep the the same make.

And my partner gets something prescribed that is not a standard UK
product. She managed to source this from one pharmacy - if she goes
elsewhere they supply different products so she has to go back to the
same place again and again. But as that is inconvenient, we get almost
everything else at a more local pharmacy! So we really do not want to be
stuck with one pharmacy. (If she cashed in her prescription at the
Sainsbury pharmacy, they would supply a special order product that costs
a very large part of a thousand pounds. With an expiry date of one
month. What she actually gets is a standard German product at a cost of,
we think, less than a hundred.)

--
Rod

On 15/02/2013 09:47, Nightjar wrote:
On 15/02/2013 09:12, polygonum wrote:
On 15/02/2013 09:08, Nightjar wrote:
On 15/02/2013 08:14, RJH wrote:

And anecdotally at
least people don't use prescription medicine because of the cost.

I would have thought that the majority of people for whom that would be
a problem should qualify for free prescriptions.


Majority maybe, but IIRC, Jobseekers flat rate does not, but
income-related does - and there are many cracks in the systems.

My point is that there is probably not a huge number of people waiting
in the wings who would suddenly start to get prescriptions were they to
be made free.

Colin Bignell

I agree that there is unlikely to be a sudden upswing. Though maybe over
time there would be more?

--
Rod

On 15/02/2013 09:43, Chris J Dixon wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:

I would also support means testing things like bus passes and winter
fuel allowance.

Though I have benefited, I don't think the original decision to
introduce these at 60 for everybody, instead of at state pension
age, was right.

Chris

Bus passes are not at 60 for everyone. Round here they are slowly
creeping up.

--
Rod

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:51:12 +0000, polygonum wrote:

I take one medicine only and the NHS "cost" of that medicine is
marginally over £12 a year (one lot month). And this seems to correlate
with costs in other countries such as Spain, I am told, where it is an
over-the-counter medicine.

However, I and everyone else on this medicine qualify for a Medical
Exemption Certificate (Medex), so actually pay nothing. (And have the
benefit of not then paying for any other prescriptions.)

If I had to pay the full prescription charge of £7.65 twelve times a
year, I would be being ripped off by the system. (That is, being charged
almost £80 more than the NHS is charged for the medicine.)

Of course, that depends on how much your GP prescribes at once. My GP is
in the habit of prescribing 3 months' worth in one go.

I did actually buy a PPC, but 4 months later my GP informed me that under
new regulations I qualified for free prescriptions for the next 5 years
(and even sent me a pre-filled in forma for me to sign). I managed to get
a pro-rate refund on the PPC!

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Friday, February 15, 2013 10:06:44 AM UTC, Kim Bolton wrote:
snip
You should meet my mid-80s mother-in-law.

I don't really know the reason why - it might be
something to do with WWII, but I'm not sure - but she has to have a
'stock' of everything. In the days when she could get out and do her
own shopping, it included having a 'stock' of supermarket plastic
bags. We estimate she had 20,000 of them, before SWMBO threw them
out. She won't eat food in her freezer (because it's her 'stock') so
lives on sandwiches. She's been prescribed a medicated cream for a
skin condition, but won't use it as she doesn't have a 'stock' of
it, so saves it up. No 'stock' item is ever used for anything.

That reminds me of the attitude of storekeepers at some of the places I've worked - I remember a colleague having a stores requisition refused because 'we only have one left and we need to keep it in case someone needs it' - the fact that *he* needed it for an urgent project didn't seem to be sufficient...

On 15/02/2013 11:24, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:51:12 +0000, polygonum wrote:

I take one medicine only and the NHS "cost" of that medicine is
marginally over £12 a year (one lot month). And this seems to correlate
with costs in other countries such as Spain, I am told, where it is an
over-the-counter medicine.

However, I and everyone else on this medicine qualify for a Medical
Exemption Certificate (Medex), so actually pay nothing. (And have the
benefit of not then paying for any other prescriptions.)

If I had to pay the full prescription charge of £7.65 twelve times a
year, I would be being ripped off by the system. (That is, being charged
almost £80 more than the NHS is charged for the medicine.)

Of course, that depends on how much your GP prescribes at once. My GP is
in the habit of prescribing 3 months' worth in one go.

I did actually buy a PPC, but 4 months later my GP informed me that under
new regulations I qualified for free prescriptions for the next 5 years
(and even sent me a pre-filled in forma for me to sign). I managed to get
a pro-rate refund on the PPC!

Our PCT is wont to rap GPs over the knuckles for doing three month
prescriptions. But they have reluctantly had to semi-back down in the
light of the MHRA recommendation.

If that is a possibility (getting a Medex), then always get a special
receipt from the pharmacy for everything between when you first think it
and when you actually get it - or realise you won't. These special
receipts can then be refunded by the Medex people. An ordinary till
receipt will NOT do!

--
Rod

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:06:32 +0000, polygonum wrote:

On 15/02/2013 09:21, Nightjar wrote:
On 15/02/2013 08:51, polygonum wrote:
On 15/02/2013 08:14, RJH wrote:


Govt claims 88% don't pay - I would question that. And anecdotally at
least people don't use prescription medicine because of the cost.


The saga of prescription charges goes on!

If you are even slightly financially OK but medically not OK, and
subject to NHS prescription charges, it is likely worth capping your
outgoings by getting a Prescription Prepayment Certificate (PPC) at
£104 a year. (Do government "don't pay" figures include PPC
purchasers? After all, they do not pay prescription by prescription.)

It is whether you pay at all, not whether you pay prescription by
prescription.

I take one medicine only and the NHS "cost" of that medicine is
marginally over £12 a year (one lot month). And this seems to
correlate with costs in other countries such as Spain, I am told,
where it is an over-the-counter medicine.

However, I and everyone else on this medicine qualify for a Medical
Exemption Certificate (Medex), so actually pay nothing. (And have the
benefit of not then paying for any other prescriptions.)

If I had to pay the full prescription charge of £7.65 twelve times a
year, I would be being ripped off by the system. (That is, being
charged almost £80 more than the NHS is charged for the medicine.)...

Having to get a prescription every month is a NICE recommendation, to
reduce the cost to the NHS from medicine supplied to people who die
before using it all. Some GPs will still give a three month
prescription.

Colin Bignell


I actually get my prescription every 56 days. But many others on the
same medicine and equally stable have been stuck onto 28 day
prescriptions.

NICE left a large gap to allow for long-term, stable medicines to be
prescribed on a longer period basis. But my PCT's interpretation was
near enough a blanket ban on 28-day prescribing. And yet the MHRA has
only last month issued specific advice that prescriptions for this
medicine that it positively should be on an 84-day basis. Given the cost
of handling two extra prescriptions (i.e. three one month prescriptions
as recommended for many things by NICE and as endorsed by my PCT,
against one three month prescription) is far greater than the cost of
the medicine, the cost saving claim is ludicrous.

And my PCT was utterly unable to explain how to translate mandatory
28-day prescribing into advice for "take as needed" medicines. Not even
to say that they were obviously not covered.

I go to the patient review meetings at our practice and they have stated
that they have saved significant money by cutting the prescription maximum
from 3 months to 2 months.

My feeling is that they could start with 1 month prescriptions, and work
upwards with those with chronic conditions to 2,3 even 6 months of
medication.

The assumption being that if you have been on the same medication for over
a year and the general prognosis is that you aren't going to peg out soon
from any known condition then you might as well have a long term supply.

I wonder, though, how much saving comes from the retire patients going to
Spain for 3 months over winter and having to buy one month's worth of
medication abroad. :-)

Cheers

Dave R

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 20:23:34 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

On 14/02/2013 20:16, GB wrote:
On 14/02/2013 12:22, Man at B&Q wrote:
On Feb 14, 11:40 am, "David WE Roberts" wrote:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31778

Petition against the removal of additional tax allowances for
pensioners.

Why would I want to do that?

It will do absolutely nothing to help those in real need.

All it will do is give more to those who already have enough to
benefit from said tax allowances.

How much do people need to get in order to benefit from the Age
Allowance?


Why not sign http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32346 instead?

Might do if it was less specific - general nuclear power instead of one
specific technology.

I now have to go and research that specific technology.

Not that much support so far.

Cheers

Dave R

On 15/02/2013 12:40, David.WE.Roberts wrote:


I go to the patient review meetings at our practice and they have stated
that they have saved significant money by cutting the prescription maximum
from 3 months to 2 months.

My feeling is that they could start with 1 month prescriptions, and work
upwards with those with chronic conditions to 2,3 even 6 months of
medication.

The assumption being that if you have been on the same medication for over
a year and the general prognosis is that you aren't going to peg out soon
from any known condition then you might as well have a long term supply.

I wonder, though, how much saving comes from the retire patients going to
Spain for 3 months over winter and having to buy one month's worth of
medication abroad. :-)

Cheers

Dave R


Or maybe relate the prescription length to the cost of the medicine?

As I say, in my case, £12 a year. Honestly, I can't believe it is worth
doing even two prescriptions rather than one!

We do see (if you read Pulse!) lots of complaints over the work burden
on doctors of handling repeat prescriptions. That could be reduced. :-)

--
Rod

polygonum wrote:

On 15/02/2013 09:43, Chris J Dixon wrote:

Though I have benefited, I don't think the original decision to
introduce these at 60 for everybody, instead of at state pension
age, was right.

Bus passes are not at 60 for everyone. Round here they are slowly
creeping up.

But my point is that, at least in England (don't know about
elsewhere) they were when first introduced. They are now
gradually aligning them, as they should have been from the start.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.