50cents per item for medical card users.

Lemondrop kid

Joey the lips wrote: »

Folks I have no problem in paying 50c per item. My problem and my belief is that once you start paying something the price only goes up.

The plastic bag tax would be a brilliant example of this.

I think the goverment would be far better changing there system of payments to GP's and pharmacies instead of per item it would be per perscription.

Well i do see this being a temp measure, 2-5 years, without much rise.
The potential for fallout is too severe, esp amongst the elderly

Joey the lips

Lemondrop kid wrote: »

Well i do see this being a temp measure, 2-5 years, without much rise.
The potential for fallout is too severe, esp amongst the elderly

Fianna failure man????? Would you be willing to bet on that>

**** this for a non issue.

Spare a thought for the poor unfortunates who don't qualify for the medical card and when they get sick they can't afford to go to the doctor in the first place to even get the prescription, let alone pay for the prescription once they get it.

If you can't afford 50 cent, then that's your fault. Welfare is WAY too generous as it is. Start budgeting better.

Joey the lips

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

**** this for a non issue.

Spare a thought for the poor unfortunates who don't qualify for the medical card and when they get sick they can't afford to go to the doctor in the first place to even get the prescription, let alone pay for the prescription once they get it.

If you can't afford 50 cent, then that's your fault. Welfare is WAY too generous as it is. Start budgeting better.

:rolleyes:

Lemondrop kid

Joey the lips wrote: »

Fianna failure man????? Would you be willing to bet on that>

Em perhaps you should re-read my posts, esp in the Budget 2010 threads Joey.

As for the willing to bet, i certainly hope it doesn't happen.
The demogaphic which dominate these posts - and they have every right - don't seem to have a clear view of the nature of the poverty trap. Certainly that trap now includes the lower paid and those with large mortages, but the dismissive anger towards those in the same or worse boat (SW recipients) is only serving the agenda of the very rich.
Well there's my politics in as much as it exists.
Pol party wise i'll be voting for the 'monster raving lunatic party' branch if every they get over here.;)

KC JONES

ejmaztec wrote: »

I think that's probably the masterplan.

Who gets to keep it, the government or the pharmacist?

will the pharmacist get any of it or will they just be collecting tax for the govt

KC JONES

Of course someone who had say 5 meds could ask the pharmacist to waive/absorb it or else walk. When you consider a lot of folk go regularly to the same pharmacy they would have a lot of power. That is what i would do if i were a 5 med person. I certainly would not give the same pharmacist the fee each time.

No loyalty but to wallet:D

best money saving idea ever - so much wastage going on between unnecessary doctor's prescribing fees and people unnecessarily consuming medicine. totally agree with this. as many have said, given (in most cases) that it's a repeat prescription and therefore flagged well in advance- if it's really required the money will not be an issue.

97i9y3941

defo i think this thing will start going up,maybe putting it at akward prices then like €2.43 or something so you would be made to handover €2.50 or something,why cant they do an holland job and bring in a pay as you go med plan?...

johnnyskeleton

Lemondrop kid wrote: »

As far as i understand that's the situation.
Now consider this.
An ill person on low income needs their medication on a mon/tue.
But they are broke.
'What? You might say '50cents? Get real'
Well suppose there's four or five items on it.
'So what 2.50. No biggy.'
No i have worked with and seen medical card (low income) holders completly broke on a mon/tue, or whatever.
'So what, borrow it.'
Not always possible.

So you have a potential situation where a person who needs medication can't access it until payday, with attendant risks therein.

I think the govt are walking themselves into a possible legal mindfield.

Thoughts?

Rather than pay in cash, there should be a link between their medical card and their social welfare payments. Everytime the medical card is scanned it deducts 50 from their next social welfare payment.

They are very small amounts, and to be honest health should be priority number 1 for people. So if they choose to spend the 50 on something else that is either gross financial mismanagement on their part or else it is a brazen effort to refuse to pay it on the basis that the government won't let them die.

If someone gets just under €200 a week plus free bus, medical visits and possibly rent allowance and instead of paying 50c to look after their own health they spend it on something else, I don't think they deserve any extra help. They have to learn personal financial responsibility and while I'd like them to learn this without the risk of dire consequences, they're going to have to grow up some time.

Does that make me a bad person?

97i9y3941

like i said,maybe use a pay as you go med plan like holland?,some people who are on the med cards are in great health and rarely use them at all!..

johnnyskeleton

Lemondrop kid wrote: »

Perhaps I should have framed my question differently.
If an individual can contest and possibly prove suffering due to this policy, will the compesentation cost much more than the policy saves?

The government is not liable for nonfeasance of a public duty unless there is specific negligence.

So the government will be liable for actively doing something which violates your rights, but will not be liable for omitting to do something unless they were specifically negligent in your case.

iPink

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So if they choose to spend the 50 on something else that is either gross financial mismanagement on their part or else it is a brazen effort to refuse to pay it on the basis that the government won't let them die.

If someone gets just under €200 a week plus free bus, medical visits and possibly rent allowance and instead of paying 50c to look after their own health they spend it on something else, I don't think they deserve any extra help. They have to learn personal financial responsibility and while I'd like them to learn this without the risk of dire consequences, they're going to have to grow up some time.

Does that make me a bad person?

Interesting point... I wonder if food for their children would be considered as 'something else' in your opinion?

Call me financially irresponsible if you will but there have been times I have had to literally count cents out to buy a loaf of bread, just cos €2.50 or indeed 50c doesn't seem like a lot to you, it doesn't mean it isn't to other people, poverty is becoming a very real thing in Ireland at the moment.

Does it make you a bad person? probably not, condesending & judgemental? yes, for sure

iPink

iPink wrote: »

Interesting point... I wonder if food for their children would be considered as 'something else' in your opinion?

Call me financially irresponsible if you will but there have been times I have had to literally count cents out to buy a loaf of bread, just cos €2.50 or indeed 50c doesn't seem like a lot to you, it doesn't mean it isn't to other people, poverty is becoming a very real thing in Ireland at the moment.

Does it make you a bad person? probably not, condesending & judgemental? yes, for sure

200 euro a week on food? Is that a joke? That would feed 10 people..

iPink

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

200 euro a week on food? Is that a joke? That would feed 10 people..

I presume you are being sarcastic because I'm quite sure that no-body in their sane mind would expect to be taken seriously with a comment like that.

Oh yes, 200euro goes a REALLY long way when you have kids- lets see; food, drink, clothes, shoes, rent, electricity, heating, schooling, nappies, bus fare, soap, toothpaste etc etc etc the list is endless... but then I'll probably be shot down & told that the items on this list are luxuries & not 'essentials'...

By the way, if you think 200e a week would feed 10 people then fair play to you!!

tudlytops

Lemondrop kid wrote: »

As far as i understand that's the situation.
Now consider this.
An ill person on low income needs their medication on a mon/tue.
But they are broke.
'What? You might say '50cents? Get real'
Well suppose there's four or five items on it.
'So what 2.50. No biggy.'
No i have worked with and seen medical card (low income) holders completly broke on a mon/tue, or whatever.
'So what, borrow it.'
Not always possible.

So you have a potential situation where a person who needs medication can't access it until payday, with attendant risks therein.

I think the govt are walking themselves into a possible legal mindfield.

Thoughts?

Wouldn't the goverment save more money if medical card holders didn't have to go to the doctor to get a prescription for non prescription items.

Say i want Calpol for my child, so instead of being able to go to my chemist who would have my medical card on record and just get the Calpol = Goverment pays for Calpol, i have to go to my doctor and get a prescription for it = goverment pays doctor and Calpol.

They would save big on doctors fees, but then that would upset the doctors can't have that

iPink

iPink wrote: »

I presume you are being sarcastic because I'm quite sure that no-body in their sane mind would expect to be taken seriously with a comment like that.

Oh yes, 200euro goes a REALLY long way when you have kids- lets see; food, drink, clothes, shoes, rent, electricity, heating, schooling, nappies, bus fare, soap, toothpaste etc etc etc the list is endless... but then I'll probably be shot down & told that the items on this list are luxuries & not 'essentials'...

By the way, if you think 200e a week would feed 10 people then fair play to you!!

How often do you have to buy soap or toothpaste...once a month? You get a free bus card. When I was a kid my clothes (items that needed replacing) were bought in penneys maybe once or twice a year - and this was only 20 years ago. The more people you're buying food for the cheaper each subsequent person becomes. Unless of course you're buying each one coke/fanta/crisps/snacks etc that are totally not essential in the slightest. I know I never had any of these as a kid in the 80's except for special occassions.

Plus you're getting child benefit for these kids.


edit: anyway, enough of the off-topicness.

tudlytops

Yes can we stick to the topic it self, what do you think of my idea?

I'm not totality wrong am I?

iPink

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

How often do you have to buy soap or toothpaste...once a month? You get a free bus card. When I was a kid my clothes (items that needed replacing) were bought in penneys maybe once or twice a year - and this was only 20 years ago. The more people you're buying food for the cheaper each subsequent person becomes. Unless of course you're buying each one coke/fanta/crisps/snacks etc that are totally not essential in the slightest. I know I never had any of these as a kid in the 80's except for special occassions.

Plus you're getting child benefit for these kids.


edit: anyway, enough of the off-topicness.

I love the way people pick on the easiest parts... bypass the nappies, cost of schooling, rent, heating etc & go straight for the soap & toothpaste lol

Please don't presume to judge me by throwing in comments about crisps/snacks etc I wish that was what I fed my kids on... believe me it costs a hell of a lot more to try to feed them properly on fruit, veg, decent meat, wholemeal foods etc

If you are only 20 years old (which you say you are) I wouldn't even expect you to understand the pressure, worry & stress that goes with being a parent & literally not knowing where the next meal is going to come from... let alone try your best to provide them with SOME semblance of a 'normal' life like their friends may have...

By the way... what bus card??????

iPink

back to the topic at hand... 50c per item for med. card holders....

I think it's a good idea to have to pay a nominal amount for prescriptions but I think a 'per item' cost may be a bit of a problem for some people

I see my Father for example, he has a heart condition and high blood pressure with it amongst other things... he could have anything from 15 to 20 items on any given prescription, it adds up to quite a lot

Also people who are on long-term illness... could be a lot for them to bear also...?

Lemondrop kid

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Rather than pay in cash, there should be a link between their medical card and their social welfare payments. Everytime the medical card is scanned it deducts 50 from their next social welfare payment.

Actually Johnny, that's a pretty damned good idea -it really is. Logisitcally it might prove tricky, but you're def on to something there - possible a voucher/credit scheme. The reason I say this, and I know some have difficulty believing it, there is a time when as one poster suggested, when a parent is counting the pennies for a loaf of bread - it does actually happen and NOT simply amongst the financially 'reckless' (in as much as a tight budget can allow recklessness). But if they were rckless (alcohol probs etc, should their child go without med / depend on the generousity of the chemist?

They are very small amounts, and to be honest health should be priority number 1 for people. So if they choose to spend the 50 on something else that is either gross financial mismanagement on their part or else it is a brazen effort to refuse to pay it on the basis that the government won't let them die.

As above

If someone gets just under €200 a week plus free bus, medical visits and possibly rent allowance and instead of paying 50c to look after their own health they spend it on something else, I don't think they deserve any extra help. They have to learn personal financial responsibility and while I'd like them to learn this without the risk of dire consequences, they're going to have to grow up some time.

As above

Does that make me a bad person?

Not at all. It's important to consider this sot of issue. Personally I think it may lead to REAL suffering. Although seemingly innocuous, i think it may become an Achille's heel for the govt - any govt. I also firmly believe some will delay filling their perscription bec of it.
A possible other solution should be that meds considered essential (tricky i know) should be exempt.

Lemondrop kid

tudlytops wrote: »

Wouldn't the goverment save more money if medical card holders didn't have to go to the doctor to get a prescription for non prescription items.

Say i want Calpol for my child, so instead of being able to go to my chemist who would have my medical card on record and just get the Calpol = Goverment pays for Calpol, i have to go to my doctor and get a prescription for it = goverment pays doctor and Calpol.

They would save big on doctors fees, but then that would upset the doctors can't have that

Interesting idea, and that's what's required . But this i don't think, would fly - unless the doctors compiled a list of non-essential meds, which is possibly opening an endless can or worms. But again, a novel approach.

Max Power1

Lemondrop kid wrote: »

As far as i understand that's the situation.
Now consider this.
An ill person on low income needs their medication on a mon/tue.
But they are broke.
'What? You might say '50cents? Get real'
Well suppose there's four or five items on it.
'So what 2.50. No biggy.'
No i have worked with and seen medical card (low income) holders completly broke on a mon/tue, or whatever.
'So what, borrow it.'
Not always possible.

So you have a potential situation where a person who needs medication can't access it until payday, with attendant risks therein.

I think the govt are walking themselves into a possible legal mindfield.

Thoughts?

I dont get what the problem is? I'm in a relatively low paying admin job. My medication for asthma costs me 80 euro per month (used to be 120 till they brought in the card where you only have to pay a max of 80 per month) plus an additional GP visit, another 50 or so, eveyr 3 months. I know I need my medication every 4 weeks or I may lose the ability to breathe. so do you know what I do... I BUDGET ACCORDINGLY!!!

Its 50 cent FFS. I hope that they do like a previous poster said and deduct it at source rather than wait for you to pay it. Should have been higher. Might reduce the number of unnecessary meds currently funded by you and I, the taxpayer.

maryjane007 wrote: »

i think its a foot in the door once the fee is there they may well start inflating it in future budgets

Heres hoping!!

Lemondrop kid

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The government is not liable for nonfeasance of a public duty unless there is specific negligence.

So the government will be liable for actively doing something which violates your rights, but will not be liable for omitting to do something unless they were specifically negligent in your case.

Very good post, Johnny. Again, you could have something there.

However, the first media coverage of child without meds because of 2 euro will prob do more than any legal action anyway.

MaceFace

tudlytops wrote: »

Wouldn't the goverment save more money if medical card holders didn't have to go to the doctor to get a prescription for non prescription items.

Say i want Calpol for my child, so instead of being able to go to my chemist who would have my medical card on record and just get the Calpol = Goverment pays for Calpol, i have to go to my doctor and get a prescription for it = goverment pays doctor and Calpol.

They would save big on doctors fees, but then that would upset the doctors can't have that

That would require a lot of reform as the pharmacist would have to do the doctors job (check the baby and see if they look like they need Calpol).
What is to stop me asking my relative without kids to go and get it for me for free?

L1011

tudlytops wrote: »

Wouldn't the goverment save more money if medical card holders didn't have to go to the doctor to get a prescription for non prescription items.

Say i want Calpol for my child, so instead of being able to go to my chemist who would have my medical card on record and just get the Calpol = Goverment pays for Calpol, i have to go to my doctor and get a prescription for it = goverment pays doctor and Calpol.

They would save big on doctors fees, but then that would upset the doctors can't have that

Doctors are paid per annum not per incident for standard visits of medical card patients. Doctors would LOVE if medical card patients would turn up less often.

And requiring a prescription is to stop a medical card holder getting free Calpol in every chemist in the city centre and flogging it on Moore Street for 20% of the price....

L1011

KC JONES wrote: »

Of course someone who had say 5 meds could ask the pharmacist to waive/absorb it or else walk. When you consider a lot of folk go regularly to the same pharmacy they would have a lot of power. That is what i would do if i were a 5 med person. I certainly would not give the same pharmacist the fee each time.

No loyalty but to wallet:D

Pharmacist says "right so, go get your drugs elsewhere" and everyone else refuses to give them to you without the 50c charge.

Not going to work. Pure medical card scripts return very little profit to pharmacists - its DPS, high tech, etc (and of course private patients) they get the big markups on. They aren't going to absorb the 50c charge for anyone - get real.

Wile E. Coyote

Lemondrop kid wrote: »

My initial post was primarily to illustrate a possible situation which might arise and could be argued through the courts.

1/ Is such an action possible?
2/ Will it result in punitive damages against the govt, negating the savings made?

If they can't afford the 50c for the for the perscription how are they going to pay the solicitor to take it to court?

tudlytops

Lemondrop kid wrote: »

Interesting idea, and that's what's required . But this i don't think, would fly - unless the doctors compiled a list of non-essential meds, which is possibly opening an endless can or worms. But again, a novel approach.

Any thing that is non-prescription, if it is available to buy over the counter and on the medical card.

the list of medication available on the medical card already existes, just give it to the chemists, its quite simple.

johnnyskeleton

iPink wrote: »

Interesting point... I wonder if food for their children would be considered as 'something else' in your opinion?

Call me financially irresponsible if you will but there have been times I have had to literally count cents out to buy a loaf of bread, just cos €2.50 or indeed 50c doesn't seem like a lot to you, it doesn't mean it isn't to other people, poverty is becoming a very real thing in Ireland at the moment.

Again, let's look at reality rather than rhetoric. First of all, you can easily feed a family on €50-80 per week if you shop in Lidl/Aldi and shop sensibly (link even better link). Second, if you have children or a spouse to feed you get additional social welfare payments and child benefit. And allowing for bills at a generous €50 per week (€200 per month) and rent payment of €20 (rest paid by la/rent allowance/mortgage suppliment), that still leaves €50-80 discretionary spend.

Out of that €2.50 is not a large amount of money.

I accept that it must be difficult for people coming from jobs where they earned €35k+ to suddenly have to be frugal, but that's the new reality for the short-medium term.

iPink wrote: »

Does it make you a bad person? probably not, condesending & judgemental? yes, for sure

The choice is a) cut all social welfare by another €2.50 or b) don't cut social welfare, but make people think twice about getting unnecessary medicines which cost the state a lot of money and also make people less reliant on social welfare.

I don't think I'm condescending and/or judgemental. The risk of people falling into the social welfare trap is higher now than it has ever been IMO, so let's make that a little bit better.