People Over 60 Could Be Charged For Prescriptions Under New Government Plans

[RollingJ 2,017]

8 hours ago, El Cid said:

Does England have a 'devolved administration'?

No - All English decisions of the type being discussed are made at Westminster. Certain responsibilities are however handed down - think SYPTE.

[AKAMD 0]

15 hours ago, West 77 said:

Exactly correct.  It makes no sense to have free prescriptions for working  people below retirement age.

Why do we have to increase retirement age?  Surely we should be reducing it to create jobs for the young people entering the labour market and better quality of life for all!  And before you say who is going to pay for the extra pensions, it should come from the wealth created by the country: sharing it instead of stuffing it in billionaires' bank accounts!  And, why not free prescriptions for all, like in Scotland?  Thought we were one union!!!!

[El Cid 216]

1 hour ago, AKAMD said:

Why do we have to increase retirement age? 

People have their own personal or occupational pension and the state pension, they can retire when they choose.

[apelike 10]

16 minutes ago, El Cid said:

People have their own personal or occupational pension and the state pension, they can retire when they choose.

While the latter is true in order to qualify for a state retirement pension you have to reach the state pension retirement age which is at the moment 65. With an occupational pension that depends on the scheme you are in but again that is usually 65. It can be as low as 55 in some circumstances but that would be with a reduced amount.

Edited July 5, 2021 by apelike

[AKAMD 0]

9 hours ago, West 77 said:

People are living longer and are more healthy in later life which is why retirement age has been increased.  Scotland were given powers under the devolution act to make some decisions such  as free prescriptions. I suggest you go and live in Scotland if you support or want free prescriptions.

I very often wish I did!

 

So because we are living longer and more healthy lives, we should work longer to stuff more cash into billionaires bank accounts!  Having the choice to work longer is one thing, but being forced to is another, and as I said previously, we are going backwards and people like you can't see it!

[El Cid 216]

9 hours ago, apelike said:

While the latter is true in order to qualify for a state retirement pension you have to reach the state pension retirement age which is at the moment 65. With an occupational pension that depends on the scheme you are in but again that is usually 65. It can be as low as 55 in some circumstances but that would be with a reduced amount.

You can just stuff a few quid in an ISA, great if you get a tax relief with a pension but they are not compulsary.

Everyone knows their retirement age, if they want to retire earlier, thats perfectly ok.

[tinfoilhat 11]

1 hour ago, West 77 said:

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder regarding billionaires.

 

We're actually going forwards because more people than ever have more years to enjoy after they finish work until they die than ever before due to numerous reasons.  

Being alive with dementia really isn't enjoying life.

[El Cid 216]

29 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Being alive with dementia really isn't enjoying life.

Type 2 diabetes is a risk factor for dementia, particularly vascular dementia. The Government should prioritise peoples health by promoting healthy eating and exercise. We all control our own destiny, but the Government can help.

[AKAMD 0]

2 hours ago, West 77 said:

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder regarding billionaires.

 

We're actually going forwards because more people than ever have more years to enjoy after they finish work until they die than ever before due to numerous reasons.  

I'm sure there are some nice billionaires; some are philanthropists.  It's the way they get their billions, avoid taxes wherever possible and use a system that keeps those at the bottom of the economic ladder in their place that I don't like. Oh! and the fact that their obscene wealth, merely sat in their bank accounts and which they can never spend, could be used for the social good!

Do you really think increasing the pension age is progressive ?  There are many people who never reach pension age for many reasons, I would guess most of them live in deprived areas and are poor.  There is a parallel of social poverty and ill-health that inevitably leads to inequality in longevity.  Statistically, the rich live longer than the poor.  All would have 'more years to enjoy' if the pension age was lower, not higher!

This country is wealthy enough to reduce pension age, pay workers more, let them work less hours and give them more paid holidays; in essence, give them a fairer share of the country's wealth that they actually produce by their labour!

[El Cid 216]

15 minutes ago, AKAMD said:

There are many people who never reach pension age for many reasons, I would guess most of them live in deprived areas and are poor.  There is a parallel of social poverty and ill-health that inevitably leads to inequality in longevity.  Statistically, the rich live longer than the poor.  All would have 'more years to enjoy' if the pension age was lower, not higher!

This country is wealthy enough to reduce pension age, pay workers more, let them work less hours and give them more paid holidays; in essence, give them a fairer share of the country's wealth that they actually produce by their labour!

This is getting a little off-topic, but people that do not reach pension age have serious problems and giving them more money will not help them. Their issues will be healthy eating, NHS, housing, alcohol or drugs.

[altus 540]

2 hours ago, El Cid said:

Type 2 diabetes is a risk factor for dementia, particularly vascular dementia. The Government should prioritise peoples health by promoting healthy eating and exercise. We all control our own destiny, but the Government can help.

No we don't. We might be able to influence our destiny but if we have a genetic predisposition to dementia, 50% chance of developing it by 70, lifestyle choices are not going to have a huge impact on whether we develop it. There are limits to the effects of lifestyle choices on other conditions too - I doubt that footballer who had a heart attack during the Euros had made poor lifestyle choices.

[ECCOnoob 1,029]

3 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

Being alive with dementia really isn't enjoying life.

Neither is becoming paralyzed after a car accident, or getting diagnosed with cancer or having your leg blown off....

 

But we don't pull the retirement age down just in case somebody might get ill or infirm in later life.

 

The blindingly obvious fact is that the majority of people are now living healthier, living longer and working in much better conditions than they did 40, 50, 60 years ago. There are also much more people staying in education right through to their 20s. They have had a much less time in employment to contribute into the system.

 

Is it common sense for the retirement age to be  increasing with such changes in circumstances.    Without it, just exactly how long could we drift along funding our ever-increasing numbers of ageing population drawing their pensions before the sums run dry to sustain it.