Not The Politics Thread.

[FoxesDeb]

24 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Great! I'd only just realised that prescriptions are currently free for the over-60s - which will include me in just under a year.

 

It won't have a devastating impact on me as I currently only get 2 prescriptions per month and I'm not poor. I'm certainly not rich either but it would just make my budget a bit tighter or I'd have to run down savings more.

 

But, if this is confirmed, it really will be devastating for some people. Just imagine if you're on half a dozen medications (as some people are), are working on a low wage and have little in the way of savings.... It could cost some people an extra £50+ per month that they don't have, with the risk that some will not acquire essential medication thereby risking their health, while others get the medication but get into debt or struggle to pay for other essentials like rent/mortgage, bills, food etc.

 

Yet there are countless billions available for mates-of-ministers to obtain lucrative govt procurement contracts.....and, of course, we mustn't over-tax the billionaires or they'll take their money away to tax havens.... 

 

I'd be interested to hear the views of some of the more reasonable Tories or current Tory voters. @Izzy @Jon the Hat @Strokes

Anyone who needs at least one prescription every month would use the pre payment prescription service though, surely? Even at only one prescription a month it reduces the cost very slightly, and for any more than one each month they are effectively free. 

 

 

 

[Izzy]

42 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'd be interested to hear the views of some of the more reasonable Tories or current Tory voters. @Izzy @Jon the Hat @Strokes

As opposed to the more unreasonable Tories like @UpTheLeagueFox 

 

10 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Anyone who needs at least one prescription every month would use the pre payment prescription service though, surely? Even at only one prescription a month it reduces the cost very slightly, and for any more than one each month they are effectively free. 

 

Exactly this. I need 4 prescriptions a month and I'm told my bi-weekly injections cost £400 each.

 

I pay £10 a month pre-payment and it's all included. I think that even as a pensioner with little income, it still represents great vfm.

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Anyone who needs at least one prescription every month would use the pre payment prescription service though, surely? Even at only one prescription a month it reduces the cost very slightly, and for any more than one each month they are effectively free. 

 

 

Call me ignorant, but I'd never even heard of Prescription Payment Certificates before. I've been on 2 prescriptions continuously for at least 5 years and neither my GP surgery nor my chemist has ever mentioned them.

 

Here's some info for anyone as ignorant (or under-informed) as me: https://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/help-nhs-prescription-costs/prescription-prepayment-certificates-ppcs

 

"A PPC lets you get as many NHS prescriptions as you need for a set price.

If you regularly pay prescription charges, a PPC could save you money. The prescription charge in England is £9.35 per item. A PPC costs:

• £30.25 for 3 months
• £108.10 for 12 months

The quickest way to buy a PPC is to buy it online".

 

 

Those will alleviate the problem, though not eliminate it - particularly for those on very low pay or who are unable to cough up larger sums in advance....or those who, like me, have never heard of the things! 

 

That will already save me about £130 per year, if I start getting the annual ones....am I the only person who didn't know about these? 

[FoxesDeb]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Call me ignorant, but I'd never even heard of Prescription Payment Certificates before. I've been on 2 prescriptions continuously for at least 5 years and neither my GP surgery nor my chemist has ever mentioned them.

 

Here's some info for anyone as ignorant (or under-informed) as me: https://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/help-nhs-prescription-costs/prescription-prepayment-certificates-ppcs

 

"A PPC lets you get as many NHS prescriptions as you need for a set price.

If you regularly pay prescription charges, a PPC could save you money. The prescription charge in England is £9.35 per item. A PPC costs:

• £30.25 for 3 months
• £108.10 for 12 months

The quickest way to buy a PPC is to buy it online".

 

 

Those will alleviate the problem, though not eliminate it - particularly for those on very low pay or who are unable to cough up larger sums in advance....or those who, like me, have never heard of the things! 

 

That will already save me about £130 per year, if I start getting the annual ones....am I the only person who didn't know about these? 

You're very welcome 

 

You can pay it in monthly installments, too, so around the cost of just one prescription per month 

Edited 2 September 2021 by FoxesDeb

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Izzy said:

As opposed to the more unreasonable Tories like @UpTheLeagueFox 

 

 

 

I'd be interested in Geoff's view, of course.

 

But I tend to put him in a different Tory category. Less "unreasonable Tory", more "can I sell you my grandmother to be boiled down for glue to help the Tory austerity effort and, when you take her away, please could I stand kerbside, waving a union jack and chanting 'Tory! Tory! Tory! Ra! Ra! Ra!'? " 

[Innovindil]

21 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Call me ignorant, but I'd never even heard of Prescription Payment Certificates before. I've been on 2 prescriptions continuously for at least 5 years and neither my GP surgery nor my chemist has ever mentioned them.

 

Here's some info for anyone as ignorant (or under-informed) as me: https://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/help-nhs-prescription-costs/prescription-prepayment-certificates-ppcs

 

"A PPC lets you get as many NHS prescriptions as you need for a set price.

If you regularly pay prescription charges, a PPC could save you money. The prescription charge in England is £9.35 per item. A PPC costs:

• £30.25 for 3 months
• £108.10 for 12 months

The quickest way to buy a PPC is to buy it online".

 

 

Those will alleviate the problem, though not eliminate it - particularly for those on very low pay or who are unable to cough up larger sums in advance....or those who, like me, have never heard of the things! 

 

That will already save me about £130 per year, if I start getting the annual ones....am I the only person who didn't know about these? 

You can pay the 12 month fee in 10 installments of £10.81.

 

Essentially what? An hour and a half wages at minimum wage a month? Doesn't seem that bad does it.

 

Although I'm of the prescriptions should be free for everyone ilk, since "we" all pay national insurance and I believe it should be covered under that. However, if you're going to charge for prescriptions it makes sense that everyone in work under the age of retirement should pay it. Especially when over 60's on average are earning more than under 30's who have to pay. 

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Great! I'd only just realised that prescriptions are currently free for the over-60s - which will include me in just under a year.

 

It won't have a devastating impact on me as I currently only get 2 prescriptions per month and I'm not poor. I'm certainly not rich either but it would just make my budget a bit tighter or I'd have to run down savings more.

 

But, if this is confirmed, it really will be devastating for some people. Just imagine if you're on half a dozen medications (as some people are), are working on a low wage and have little in the way of savings.... It could cost some people an extra £50+ per month that they don't have, with the risk that some will not acquire essential medication thereby risking their health, while others get the medication but get into debt or struggle to pay for other essentials like rent/mortgage, bills, food etc.

 

Yet there are countless billions available for mates-of-ministers to obtain lucrative govt procurement contracts.....and, of course, we mustn't over-tax the billionaires or they'll take their money away to tax havens.... 

 

I'd be interested to hear the views of some of the more reasonable Tories or current Tory voters. @Izzy @Jon the Hat @Strokes

There is an annual prescription prepayment card for £110 so not that much of an issue.  Still personally I think all prescriptions should be free to ensure people take medication which later saves the nhs money.

[Alf Bentley]

19 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

You can pay the 12 month fee in 10 installments of £10.81.

 

Essentially what? An hour and a half wages at minimum wage a month? Doesn't seem that bad does it.

 

Although I'm of the prescriptions should be free for everyone ilk, since "we" all pay national insurance and I believe it should be covered under that. However, if you're going to charge for prescriptions it makes sense that everyone in work under the age of retirement should pay it. Especially when over 60's on average are earning more than under 30's who have to pay. 

 

You make some good points.

 

Especially with a direct debit, this prepayment scheme certainly alleviates the problem. I wonder if I'm one of a tiny minority of idiots who'd somehow never heard of this scheme or if it's been inadequately publicised and promoted?

If a lot of people remain unaware of it, that's a major problem - and a minority would still miss out if the change is made, due to low I.T./financial literacy, tight cash flow, personal disorganisation etc.

Buce's article says the Department of Health's own estimates show that 15% of those who lost the free prescriptions would end up failing to get the medication needed as a result.....with impacts for them & for NHS costs if they ended up in hospital.

 

Fair point making the comparison with under-30s, though I presume only a smallish minority in that age bracket will be on medication continuously, if you exclude those on sickness benefit or universal credit, who already get free prescriptions, I think?

Whereas the article points out that 52% in the 60-64 bracket have one or more long-term conditions, mostly requiring medication, I presume. 

 

On average, over-60s in work might be earning more than under-30s, but a significant minority is not. Of course, some of the low-paid will be on Universal Credit, which will entitle them to free prescriptions, I think. But others wouldn't qualify for various reasons or would have unavoidably high living expenses or would simply be too proud to sign on for benefits or be aware of the "hostile environment" associated with claiming benefits.... You also get the extra admin costs of more people on means-tested benefits compared to free-based-on-age.

[Innovindil]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

You make some good points.

 

Especially with a direct debit, this prepayment scheme certainly alleviates the problem. I wonder if I'm one of a tiny minority of idiots who'd somehow never heard of this scheme or if it's been inadequately publicised and promoted?

If a lot of people remain unaware of it, that's a major problem - and a minority would still miss out if the change is made, due to low I.T./financial literacy, tight cash flow, personal disorganisation etc.

Buce's article says the Department of Health's own estimates show that 15% of those who lost the free prescriptions would end up failing to get the medication needed as a result.....with impacts for them & for NHS costs if they ended up in hospital.

 

Fair point making the comparison with under-30s, though I presume only a smallish minority in that age bracket will be on medication continuously, if you exclude those on sickness benefit or universal credit, who already get free prescriptions, I think?

Whereas the article points out that 52% in the 60-64 bracket have one or more long-term conditions, mostly requiring medication, I presume. 

 

On average, over-60s in work might be earning more than under-30s, but a significant minority is not. Of course, some of the low-paid will be on Universal Credit, which will entitle them to free prescriptions, I think. But others wouldn't qualify for various reasons or would have unavoidably high living expenses or would simply be too proud to sign on for benefits or be aware of the "hostile environment" associated with claiming benefits.... You also get the extra admin costs of more people on means-tested benefits compared to free-based-on-age.

Honestly have no idea how widespread the use of it is. I know of it through my mum since she takes a bucket load of pills a month. I would have assumed GP's tell people about it but considering the mediocre efforts some of them seem to be making in general lately it wouldn't be a surprise to find out they weren't.

 

And all the points you make are fine, I just don't particularly see the issue with a £10/month fee. Right now wages are rising faster than I can ever remember, don't think it will be as big an issue as is being made out.

[Strokes]

3 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Great! I'd only just realised that prescriptions are currently free for the over-60s - which will include me in just under a year.

 

It won't have a devastating impact on me as I currently only get 2 prescriptions per month and I'm not poor. I'm certainly not rich either but it would just make my budget a bit tighter or I'd have to run down savings more.

 

But, if this is confirmed, it really will be devastating for some people. Just imagine if you're on half a dozen medications (as some people are), are working on a low wage and have little in the way of savings.... It could cost some people an extra £50+ per month that they don't have, with the risk that some will not acquire essential medication thereby risking their health, while others get the medication but get into debt or struggle to pay for other essentials like rent/mortgage, bills, food etc.

 

Yet there are countless billions available for mates-of-ministers to obtain lucrative govt procurement contracts.....and, of course, we mustn't over-tax the billionaires or they'll take their money away to tax havens.... 

 

I'd be interested to hear the views of some of the more reasonable Tories or current Tory voters. @Izzy @Jon the Hat @Strokes

I’ve not read much detail in this tbh and like you I didn’t realise they were currently free.

 

It probably needs means testing because plenty over 60s are currently working or drawing huge pensions but I’m always against leaving vulnerable pensioners without.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

8 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

I'd be interested in Geoff's view, of course.

But I tend to put him in a different Tory category. Less "unreasonable Tory", more "can I sell you my grandmother to be boiled down for glue to help the Tory austerity effort and, when you take her away, please could I stand kerbside, waving a union jack and chanting 'Tory! Tory! Tory! Ra! Ra! Ra!'? " 

Received in the spirit I'm sure you intended, Alf 

 

As I'm sure I've said several times, I don't care much who's in charge of the country.

What does amuse me is the prickly, over sensitive, easily triggered LWM.

Edited 2 September 2021 by UpTheLeagueFox

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Received in the spirit I'm sure you intended, Alf 

 

As I'm sure I've said several times, I don't care much who's in charge of the country.

What does amuse me is the prickly, over sensitive, easily triggered LWM.

 

Yes, as a politically neutral sort of chap myself, I've often noted your dispassionate, non-partisan approach to politics.

 

I've no idea what LWM is (Left-Wing Media?) so the "prickly, over sensitive, easily triggered" bit is lost on me, I'm afraid.

 

Indeed, my post was intended in good spirit. Some political issues are worth taking seriously, but not a bit of jabber on a football forum.

[Buce]

 

 

What a terrible indictment of the capitalist system when order-pickers at Amazon earn £4 an hour more than care workers.

 

The sector is heading for crisis point in November when two jabs becomes compulsary. It's cracking already.

Care workers in England leaving for Amazon and other better-paid jobs

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/04/care-workers-in-england-leaving-for-amazon-and-other-better-paid-jobs

Edited 4 September 2021 by Buce

[UpTheLeagueFox]

Latest polls this weekend.

 

 

 

[Wolfox]

Fascinating article in the New Statesman…. It’s long, but, worth the read 

 

Sums up all the missteps made by the Labour Party over the last 20 years and why in a European continent where we’ve had worse deaths and worse economic hit as a result of COVID the Torys are still Teflon…. There is no credible alternative 

 

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/09/labour-s-lost-future-inside-story-20-year-collapse

 

[doverfox]

On 02/09/2021 at 13:52, Strokes said:

I’ve not read much detail in this tbh and like you I didn’t realise they were currently free.

 

It probably needs means testing because plenty over 60s are currently working or drawing huge pensions but I’m always against leaving vulnerable pensioners without.

The problem is means testing often costs more than is saved.  Perhaps an additional increase on all tax payers of 110 per year and make them free for all would be a cheaper option. 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

7 hours ago, Wolfox said:

Fascinating article in the New Statesman…. It’s long, but, worth the read 

 

Sums up all the missteps made by the Labour Party over the last 20 years and why in a European continent where we’ve had worse deaths and worse economic hit as a result of COVID the Torys are still Teflon…. There is no credible alternative 

 

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/09/labour-s-lost-future-inside-story-20-year-collapse

 

Fascinating, in depth article.

Didn't realise some of this stuff, like:

"In 2019 Boris Johnson won a greater vote share (43.6 per cent) than Blair ever did."

"Labour won in 2005 with 35.2 per cent of the vote, the weakest percentage on record."

 

[Wolfox]

15 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Fascinating, in depth article.

Didn't realise some of this stuff, like:

"In 2019 Boris Johnson won a greater vote share (43.6 per cent) than Blair ever did."

"Labour won in 2005 with 35.2 per cent of the vote, the weakest percentage on record."

 

The canary in the coal mine!  It was dashed off as apathy as they were going to win anyway… The Tories offered nothing at the time and, fortunately for Blair, he never had a serious opponent 

 

Whatever your political persuasion it’s important to have a strong and credible opponent to hold you to account….
 

Labour missed an opportunity by not only failing to choose a northern woman recently, but, by failing to pick someone who can speak to an audience beyond the metropolitan elite…

 

Starmer is a decent man with an unimpeachable CV, but, he ain’t the man to speak to the rapidly shrinking northern heartlands

 

Even if they did find that person, devolution and the politics of independence killed 40+ seats in a single term and I can’t see them ever coming back…

 

A party of power who feels like they can go about their business with very few consequences is never a great thing…

Edited 5 September 2021 by Wolfox

[UpTheLeagueFox]

8 minutes ago, Wolfox said:

The canary in the coal mine!  It was dashed off as apathy as they were going to win anyway… The Tories offered nothing at the time and, fortunately for Blair, he never had a serious opponent 

Whatever your political persuasion it’s important to have a strong and credible opponent to hold you to account….

Labour missed an opportunity by not only failing to choose a northern woman recently, but, by failing to pick someone who can speak to an audience beyond the metropolitan elite…

Starmer is a decent man with an unimpeachable CV, but, he ain’t the man to speak to the rapidly shrinking northern heartlands

Even if they did find that person, devolution and the politics of independence killed 40+ seats in a single term and I can’t see them ever coming back…

A party of power who feels like they can go about their business with very few consequences is never a great thing…

The surprise result of 2017 actually damaged them massively.

The vocal hard left mob thought Corbyn was the messiah after that and you'd often see the Corbyn cultists spouting abuse at Labour moderates, centrists, Tory floaters - they didn't think they needed them to get into power.

If you tell these people constantly to 'eff off and join the Tories' then don't be surprised when they do. As 2019 showed.

 

As for the current polling, surely the 'vaccine bounce' has long since gone. Labour insiders must be scratching their heads as to why they're constantly behind. Maybe Keith isn't the right person to lead them. Surely he'll get the next election, unless the loony left somehow manage to oust him.

[doverfox]

When a new landlord takes over a run down pub he kicks out the trouble makers and puts up the under new management banners. What has Stammer done to show the uk Labour is under new management and disillusioned patrons are welcomed back?

[UpTheLeagueFox]

3 hours ago, doverfox said:

When a new landlord takes over a run down pub he kicks out the trouble makers and puts up the under new management banners. What has Stammer done to show the uk Labour is under new management and disillusioned patrons are welcomed back?

#Forensic

[leicsmac]

I don't think it much matters what Starmer does or doesn't do right now.

 

The Tories have the PR/spin engine down to a tee (fair play for that) and thanks to that and a friendly media they have a lot of control of public perception of both Boris and Starmer. Which right now seems to be the only thing that matters.

[worth_the_wait]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

The Tories have the PR/spin engine down to a tee (fair play for that) and thanks to that and a friendly media they have a lot of control of public perception of both Boris and Starmer. Which right now seems to be the only thing that matters.

By "friendly media", I assume you're excluding the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, The Guardian, Independent, Mirror, etc etc.

[Voll Blau]

10 hours ago, doverfox said:

When a new landlord takes over a run down pub he kicks out the trouble makers and puts up the under new management banners. What has Stammer done to show the uk Labour is under new management and disillusioned patrons are welcomed back?

I mean, his predecessor still hasn't had the Labour whip restored following his suspension. Whatever your thoughts on that, it's nothing if not a bold move for any political leader to make.

[Brizzle Fox]

54 minutes ago, worth_the_wait said:

By "friendly media", I assume you're excluding the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, The Guardian, Independent, Mirror, etc etc.

Well I imagine he's not excluding the BBC with it's Tory donor Chair, a chief political correspondent and editorial policy that finds it impossible to ask searching questions of or challenge the current administration on its lies and corruption (excluding Newsnight) in the interests of 'neutrality and balance'. 

 

Unless of course you're referencing another BBC I'm not aware of.