Finding more for cancer drugs

• Ele Ludemann writes – 

National campaigned on funding more cancer drugs but the government wasn’t able to do that in this Budget.

These drugs would make the difference in both quality and length of life for some, and could be the difference between life and death for others.

Funding was to come from reinstating the $5 prescription fee for everyone except people with Community Services cards and pensioners but that isn’t going to be enough.

One way the government could get more money for these drugs is by means testing all the extras for pensioners.

I defend universal superannuation because the alternative is a disincentive to thrift.

The poor would get a pension, the really rich wouldn’t need it but in between are the people who are too rich to be poor and too poor to be rich.

Those who through hard work and postponing spending retire with a nest egg would find that lessened the amount of their pensions, or disqualified them from it altogether.

Others who through bad luck, or bad management, had no nest eggs would get the help denied to the workers and savers.

However, my defense of universality doesn’t extend to extras such as the winter energy payment and other taxpayer funded add-ones to the pension like the prescription subsidy.

The government could, and should, at least make the extras opt-in. Better still it should means test them then use the money saved to fund more cancer drugs.

No winter energetic payment and a $5 prescription charge for those who don’t need them would be a small price to pay for better cancer treatments for those who do need them.

It might also reinforce the message that the dire economic situation we’re in requires sacrifices and extra help for pensioners who can pay their own power bills and prescription fees are nice-to-haves the country simply can’t afford.

———————

This article by Ele Ludemann was first published on Homepaddock.