Should there be a cap on the amount of money spent on an individuals treatment?

NHS Health care Featured Image 9


Yes there should be a restriction. It is unfair that the NHS spend thousands, if not millions on peoples health care over their lifetime. No one should get millions spent on whereas others, hundreds. There should be a cap on the money spent on people because the NHS can not afford to spend so much money on patients which is proven by the fact the NHS are under so much stress at the moment. The NHS do not have much money and can barely afford to run the NHS itself. Therefore it is unfair to spend so much time and effort on certain people rarther than others. Just because people have had a more unfortunate lifetime with injurys and illnesses, does not mean that they should not have more money spent on them because of this. Another reason is why spend money on older generations when they may die in a few years anyway? They are simply so weak at their age that they may as well just be left to die. They are so pointless and unuseful why keep them alive? The money could be spent on manufacturing hospitals and paying bills but why spend so much money on patients? And anyway. Even if there was a cap, people would have the choice to get private healthcare so wouldn't need to go to the NHS.


People should have a varying price spent on them because some may have had a more tough lifetime than many others. It is unfair to say to someone (because they are more unfortunate) to die and not get the medication they need because they have had more money spent on them than others. That just isn't right. People should have te right to stay alive and we should keep everyone living as long as possible not restricting their life time. People should be able to have lots of money spent on them for healthcare even though they may have had lots of money spent on them before. UK citizens should have unlimited money to be spent upon and have not constraints on money spent. To back up the point, why have a restriction anyway? The NHS have enough money to spend more on patients so there is no point placing restrictions. Another point is that older generations will need more money spent on anyway. They may start to have problems to walk or may turn partially deaf and have to have hearing aids, and these all cost money. For instance, hearing aids can cost up to a couple hundred pounds, wheel chairs cost around a hundred or so and a mobility scooter can cost multiple thousand. This proves that differnet generations are affected by certain illnesses.

In conclusion, there should not be a cap on the money spent because it is simply unfair on everyone. Everyone should be able to have as much healthcare as they need. No less. They deserve to have unlimeted care and have no restrictions just because they have had an unluky lifetime.

Thank you for reading:)

Comments (4)

  • tom Tom @ the BNC
    20 Mar 2020

    A thought exploration of both sides of this argument! Could 'fairness' be used to justify the other side of the argument being strongest?

    Reply to this comment
  • Braiswick Primary School succinct_leaves | Braiswick Primary School
    21 Mar 2020

    I am going to set my comment out in the same way as your post, so I can share my thoughts for both sides of the arguments. I hope it will also change other's minds if you've recently disagreed with my opinion, or at least you could make me agree with you if your opinion is different to mine.

    We should have a cap on what we are allowed to "take" from the NHS:

    There is a Guardian website where it calculates how much you cost the NHS yearly. You have to put in things like your age, gender and how many times you visit your local GP. After doing it I found out I cost £698 for the NHS, which actually isn't that much when the average is £2,069. A lot of this money comes from people with underlying health conditions, and a high percentage of these people are part of the elderly. If we had a cap on how much you cost for the NHS, in agreement with you, then a lot of old people who are close to dying would not throw away the NHS' funds. It wouldn’t affect them that deeply as they are most likely aware that death is around the corner. Even if we grant old people with more money than others, while it may keep them alive for a little longer, they are going to die very soon. It might make some people upset - knowing they could have lived longer - but a readied mind accepts death, and does not coware away from it in an attempt to “cheat” death. But to younger people . . .

    We shouldn’t have a cap on what we are allowed to “take” from the NHS:

    If you are young and have an underlying health condition (like pneumonia or asthma, etcetera) you definitely aren’t close to death - well, you could die if you don’t get treated - and you shouldn’t be left to die because you have a disease that you can’t control. Children have so much longer to live and so much more to experience, and we are robbing them of their life. It is worse than if there was a miscarriage because with a miscarriage there was no chance of saving the baby, but if they have a disease not only was there a chance, but the baby is born and has got so far. It will probably haunt the parents forever; the quick making of a decision means so much to the parents, but nothing to the doctors who made the decision. The baby might become something amazing, and have a profession that is righteous and powerful. Gradually, it will decrease the population because of all the babies dying at a very young age and deaths might outweigh births for the first time since a time without medicines (centuries ago).

    Although I have outlined opinions for both sides, my main belief is that we shouldn’t have a cap on what the NHS spends on us. This is because more innocent people will die, often without proper reason and cause. People will die of diseases that could have been prevented or at least slowed.

    by @succinct__leaves

    Reply to this comment
    1. tom Tom @ the BNC
      succinct_leaves's comment 23 Mar 2020

      A very in-depth look of this question and its possible answers, succinct_leaves. What do you mean by a cap? Do you mean limiting how much treatment someone can be given?

      Reply to this comment
  • Braiswick Primary School succinct_leaves | Braiswick Primary School
    21 Mar 2020

    The Guardian article I used's link:

    Reply to this comment

You must be logged in to post a comment