lolli_pop   10 #109 Posted November 10, 2011 I'm probably wrong but don't they base it on joint income which reduces the entitlement yet again?  I would suspect, like most things, it gets assessed on household income as the exemption can cover more than one person. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
gnvqsos   10 #110 Posted November 10, 2011 The idea behind a nominal fee is, that it puts off people whom abuse the system. Career hypochondriacs, and those with mental health problems.  I hardly consider it to be a nominal fee,and as such acts like a regressive tax.I also think you are wrong to imply that those with mental health issues can be lumped with malingerers-you seem very draconian Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
chem1st   10 #111 Posted November 10, 2011 Your example was based on the common cold. How many people who are not entitled to free prescriptions are likely to be classed as a medical emergency due to the common cold? Your approach is a)stupid b)immoral (a favourite word of yours) c) unlikely to succeed  What if somebody works in a food factory through an agency, and their being ill means they cannot work for multiple days after being classed as ill. They'll soon be unemployed, and have to go onto means tested benefits, but they'll have to wait to become eligible for them, and in turn for free prescriptions. 6 week, £1000 in benefits, Many hours in admin, and 240 hours of work lost to the economy later, what then?  Perhaps charging a poor man £7.40 for medicine he needs (i.e. that has been prescribed by his doctor), when he can't afford it, and is subsequently denied it. Just perhaps. Maybe that ain't the best thing to do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Murphy Jnr   10 #112 Posted November 10, 2011 I would suspect, like most things, it gets assessed on household income as the exemption can cover more than one person.  That's what i thought. So if the joint income exceeds X amount then the one person that requires a lifetime subscription still has to pay even though there personal income is low! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
ratter71   10 #113 Posted November 10, 2011 What if somebody works in a food factory through an agency, and their being ill means they cannot work for multiple days after being classed as ill. They'll soon be unemployed, and have to go onto means tested benefits, but they'll have to wait to become eligible for them, and in turn for free prescriptions. 6 week, £1000 in benefits, Many hours in admin, and 240 hours of work lost to the economy. Perhaps charging a poor man £7.40 for medicine he needs (i.e. that has been prescribed by his doctor), when he can't afford it, and is subsequently denied it. Just perhaps. Maybe that ain't the best thing to do.    Nice little story, completely unrelated to the post you quoted tho. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
top totty   10 #114 Posted November 10, 2011 Why not make a person with a lifetime condition pay for their prescriptions, but do so when they need the medicine urgently, and are skint...  Are you sober at the moment, you seem to be unable to see common sense for some reason. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
cgksheff   44 #115 Posted November 10, 2011 Then the Health Authority is going to be very upset with him. They're only supposed to give out a months' supply at a time.  Not a problem, here. They use their common sense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
chem1st   10 #116 Posted November 10, 2011 Are you sober at the moment, you seem to be unable to see common sense for some reason.  You Americano? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
top totty   10 #117 Posted November 10, 2011 You Americano?  I give up you are a complete tool:loopy: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
chem1st   10 #118 Posted November 10, 2011 I give up you are a complete tool:loopy:  So you accept denying somebody medicine when they need it but can't afford it is unjust? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
lolli_pop   10 #119 Posted November 10, 2011 That's what i thought. So if the joint income exceeds X amount then the one person that requires a lifetime subscription still has to pay even though there personal income is low!  If your lifetime condition is on the list, you don't pay. If it is, you do. I'm asthmatic and free prescriptions would be very nice but at least pre-pay is cheaper. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
crazybaby   10 #120 Posted November 10, 2011 I just checked out the HC1 form, it looks very much like you have to be living with a partner. Not sure if this will help him, he lives on his own. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...