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

[apelike 10]

5 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

My retirement age as it stands is 67 - I fully expect that to move to 70.

I do feel sorry for you especially as I retired when I was 62!

 

5 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

You bolded age related illness - I never said long term, you did. 

Yes I did as it simply does not matter then at which age they retire at as most will have already retired by then.

[tinfoilhat 11]

7 minutes ago, apelike said:

I do feel sorry for you especially as I retired when I was 62!

 

Yes I did as it simply does not matter then at which age they retire at as most will have already retired by then.

People with really long term illness will be dead by retirement age. Trying to find how many die each year under 65 and then how many die under 70 and it's a faff and I'm bored with.

 

Keep economically active everyone!

[AKAMD 0]

4 hours ago, El Cid said:

When the state pension was first introduced in 1909 the average age of death was 54, you had to live to 70 to get it though. Things have improved to the point where its no longer the Governments role to support the entire population for 25 years after their retirement.

And I thought I was paying National Insurance all those years for my pension!

[El Cid 214]

10 hours ago, AKAMD said:

And I thought I was paying National Insurance all those years for my pension!

Then you would expect NI to increase by 8% when the triple lock increases the pension by 8%?

You would also expect NI to be conciderably higher than when the average death rate was 10 years lower.

[Anna B 1,401]

On 04/07/2021 at 09:27, El Cid said:

Men have been retiring at 65 for years, its only been going up to 66-67 in recent years, women live longer so they should be healthier and cope better with retiring at 67.

I would argue that many women never retire.

Even in this age of equality. it is still the women who do the lions share of the housework, look after ageing parents, look after grandchildren, do charity work etc.

And I think the retirement age should have been reduced for both men and women to free up jobs for younger people. Frankly, at 67, a lot of older people are simply too tired to work. 

 

 

[apelike 10]

49 minutes ago, Anna B said:

...... And I think the retirement age should have been reduced for both men and women to free up jobs for younger people. Frankly, at 67, a lot of older people are simply too tired to work. 

Actually I also agree with that first bit. If more people retire early then more younger people can be employed who would contribute more in taxes, VAT etc because they would actually be the ones spending more.  As you get older and approach retirement you should have by that time accumulated all the basic things you need and as I can see from my family members, all over 65, they just seem to spend money on holidays and that's about it. 

[AKAMD 0]

4 hours ago, West 77 said:

Hopefully you will still get your pension and be rewarded for your National Insurance contributions.

 

You do realise that you're effectively complaining because you're expected to live longer? Would you be happier if the retirement age was reduced because everyone was expected to have a shorter life?

Don't see the point in your last question, I am complaining about the fact that we are regressing our social wellbeing.  The vast increase in wealth that has been generated by the people of this country over recent decades has been distributed unequally and unfairly to the benefit of those who need it the least: the rich!  People should be paid more, work less hours, have more leisure time, free prescriptions, free dental checkups, free education and retire earlier with better pensions.  All can be achieved with a fairer distribution of the nation's wealth.  Oh! and like everyone else, I have no control over my life expectancy.

3 hours ago, El Cid said:

Then you would expect NI to increase by 8% when the triple lock increases the pension by 8%?

You would also expect NI to be conciderably higher than when the average death rate was 10 years lower.

Rate of pensions and NI are not relevant, my case is that there should be a fairer distribution of the nation's wealth, which would pay for a lot more that maintaining the triple lock!

[El Cid 214]

13 minutes ago, AKAMD said:

Rate of pensions and NI are not relevant, my case is that there should be a fairer distribution of the nation's wealth, which would pay for a lot more that maintaining the triple lock!

It was you that brought NI into this conversation, now you say its not relevant!

[tinfoilhat 11]

58 minutes ago, West 77 said:

Okay to conclude you believe the most wealthy should behave like Sugar Daddies in order for the retirement age to remain the same and to keep free prescriptions for all over 60's.  

Or we stick with the current option where the super wealthy pay precious little tax then some of  their employees have to claim benefits to top up their wages from taxes that the super wealthy go out of their way not to pay.

 

It's a funny old world.

 

I'm leaning towards everyone - kids, old people, diabetics - the lot - have to pay for their prescriptions. £300m worth we waste each year - it will focus minds if they had to pay for it.

[Thirsty Relic 209]

11 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

I'm leaning towards everyone - kids, old people, diabetics - the lot - have to pay for their prescriptions. £300m worth we waste each year - it will focus minds if they had to pay for it.

.... and I suppose if they couldn't pay for it, then they'd either live in pain or with preventable disabilities, or simply die off, thus again saving the country £millions.

 

Of course, simply selling off the HNS to anybody wanting to buy it (the US have been slowly getting inroads into it over for years) would save even more millions a year on taxes, and a one-off windfall for the Government of the day.  Oh, and the average age  would fall as people die earlier as they couldn't afford the medicine, so fewer people would be claiming state pensions, saving even more.

[apelike 10]

21 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

I'm leaning towards everyone - kids, old people, diabetics - the lot - have to pay for their prescriptions. £300m worth we waste each year - it will focus minds if they had to pay for it.

Should we also apply that reasoning to non emergency NHS treatment as well?  We could stop treating the obese, the smokers, the addicts, the drunks, the depressed, the infertile etc and save even more!

[tinfoilhat 11]

10 minutes ago, Thirsty Relic said:

.... and I suppose if they couldn't pay for it, then they'd either live in pain or with preventable disabilities, or simply die off, thus again saving the country £millions.

 

Pass that on to javid and you could end up with a job!

 

11 minutes ago, Thirsty Relic said:

 

Of course, simply selling off the HNS to anybody wanting to buy it (the US have been slowly getting inroads into it over for years) would save even more millions a year on taxes, and a one-off windfall for the Government of the day.  Oh, and the average age  would fall as people die earlier as they couldn't afford the medicine, so fewer people would be claiming state pensions, saving even more.

It won't save the taxpayer any money at all.  The Americans pay through the eyes for it all over the place. And if it's like pet insurance they won't pay out for much at all. Contracts for friends and family though? Of course.

 

It solves the care crisis and obesity crisis in one go.

2 minutes ago, apelike said:

Should we also apply that reasoning to non emergency NHS treatment as well?  We could stop treating the obese, the smokers, the addicts, the drunks, the depressed, the infertile etc and save even more!

No, just prescriptions for now.  Bin off free  infertility treatment though. Alot of the rest of it will come down to prescriptions be it methadone or antidepressants, which they'll pay for. Or not.