Welfare. Can we afford it?

[First Aspect]

IMO what we lack is any kind of rational non-party discussion about the country's priorities.

Where is the debate about health spending by age of patient for example?

We might decide to spend more on health promotion and less on treating the diseases of old age, for example.

E.g. is it cheaper to keep obese people on munjaro permanently than to treat them later for diabetes, arthritis, heart disease etc? I am not sure when the parents run out, but as soon as they do it's going to be harder to argue.

 

[Rusty Nails]

E.g. is it cheaper to keep obese people on munjaro permanently than to treat them later for diabetes, arthritis, heart disease etc? I am not sure when the parents run out, but as soon as they do it's going to be harder to argue.

I hope you mean 'patents' running out rather than euthenising the elderly.

 

[First Aspect]

I hope you mean 'patents' running out rather than euthenising the elderly.

I did. I need to find a more literate keyboard that doesn't autoincorrect.

 

[Ian H]

The question should be can we afford not to pay welfare to those in need. Leaving aside questions of moral duty.

 

[TailWindHome]

E.g. is it cheaper to keep obese people on munjaro permanently than to treat them later for diabetes, arthritis, heart disease etc? I am not sure when the parents run out, but as soon as they do it's going to be harder to argue.

Asked my Sister-in-law (a doctor) this question recently as I thought the same.

Esentially they (GPs) have been told that the up front costs of x million patients on these drugs at £y per month for life would bankrupt the NHS long before any savings would be made.

 

[First Aspect]

Asked my Sister-in-law (a doctor) this question recently as I thought the same.

Esentially they (GPs) have been told that the up front costs of x million patients on these drugs at £y per month for life would bankrupt the NHS long before any savings would be made.

Hence my reference to the patent term. As I understand things, the earliest filing dates for these is 2016 or thereabouts. If you can hold out until probably 2041 we will probably see generics on Amazon.

 

[mickle]

The UK benefits system has never been more difficult to take advantage of. If we're really concerned about people scamming the system let's go after the tax avoiders and evaders at the other end of the income scale, both corporate and individual.

And the amount that 'feckless benefits scroungers' take out of the system is substantially less than the sum to which people are entitled but which goes unclaimed.

 

[Psamathe]

We might decide to spend more on health promotion and less on treating the diseases of old age, for example.

E.g. is it cheaper to keep obese people on munjaro permanently than to treat them later for diabetes, arthritis, heart disease etc? I am not sure when the parents run out, but as soon as they do it's going to be harder to argue.

With reagrd to health and treatment costs my concern is that politicians are failing to address causes at source. Why so many suffering poor health and obesity? Maybe abandon the altar of "self-regulation" which in reality seems to be to allow the corporations to do whatever they want to seek higher profits irrespective of the health and wellbeing of the public.

Everybody knows the benefits of an active lifestyle and eg the cost effectiveness of eg cycle infrastructure (with multiple benefits to society) yet politicians seem unable to move past talking about it and we see cycle infrastructure plans discarded and abandoned.

Too often politicians seem unable to think beyond "lets just stop eg paying those in need" rather than resolving the reasons they are in need.

We know many of the solutions just our politicians are not up to the task.

 

[AndyRM]

The UK benefits system has never been more difficult to take advantage of. If we're really concerned about people scamming the system let's go after the tax avoiders and evaders at the other end of the income scale, both corporate and individual.

And the amount that 'feckless benefits scroungers' take out of the system is substantially less than the sum to which people are entitled but which goes unclaimed.

100% this.

Benefit fraud costs the treasury about £6bn annually, tax avoidance/evasion is around £50bn. But it's fair easier to demonise and stigmatise one group than the other.

 

[spen666]

100% this.

Benefit fraud costs the treasury about £6bn annually, tax avoidance/evasion is around £50bn. But it's fair easier to demonise and stigmatise one group than the other.

Interesting way to compare things comparing the value of illegal acts with the cost of legal and illegal acts

Nothing like a fair comparison

Also all illegal acts should be dealt with. I really couldn't care if benefit fraud is less than tax evasion, it is still criminal activity that is costing the public. There is no reason to let one type of fraud continue because someone else is committing a different type of fraud

 

[Ian H]

Interesting way to compare things comparing the value of illegal acts with the cost of legal and illegal acts

Nothing like a fair comparison

Also all illegal acts should be dealt with. I really couldn't care if benefit fraud is less than tax evasion, it is still criminal activity that is costing the public. There is no reason to let one type of fraud continue because someone else is committing a different type of fraud

Law of diminishing returns. More draconian measures mostly penalise those who are honest but less expert at using the system.

 

[Milzy]

It’s called welfare & it’s more than well fair but we can afford it.

 

[Rusty Nails]

There is no reason to let one type of fraud continue because someone else is committing a different type of fraud

Luckily no one has said that.

 

[spen666]

Luckily no one has said that.

plenty are objecting to cracking down on one type of fraud because others are committing higher value fraud

 

[spen666]

It’s called welfare & it’s more than well fair but we can afford it.

Shame its called welfare, not well fair