They are only £250 for a better quality set privately made but going on the premis here, why shouldn't the oldies have the best available on the NHS rather than have to pay for dentures themselves???? :) :) :)

> what I understand is to only fund the NHS quality jobs (remember the old NHS style glasses

Again Googling I have found this.  They don't look as good but not too bad either and again, the difference appears to be cosmetic.

> why shouldn't the oldies have the best available on the NHS rather than have to pay for dentures themselves????

Yes I do think the NHS ones should be free to pensioners. 

Tee hee! :)

My point is that people want cosmetic treatment to be covered my the NHS but function necessity to eat isn't provided free even when you've paid taxes all of your life.  We accept it because we understand that the NHS cannot provide everything for everybody, but the younger generation seem to think that whatever they want (not need) should be provided for them.  Times sure have changed!

I feel the same.  My 16 year old daughter is having treatment by an orthodontist at the moment and has been for the last 18 months or so.  She had a tooth in her gum and the dentist said her mouth was overcrowded so he had to take two teeth out and then the tooth in the gum had to come down and a brace fitted to get it into place.  She was meant to be having treatment when she was 11 years old but the orthodontist asked her if she was happy having treatment and she said 'no' so he said he couldn't go ahead with it unless the child was happy which I was quite annoyed at.  She didn't want braces because she was starting secondary school and was scared of getting teased.  When she was 13 she decided she wanted to get her teeth sorted out after some cruel comments from her grandad (her dad's dad)  She went on the waiting list for another 12 months and she now has braces on both top and bottom teeth.  She is at college now on a travel and tourism course because she has her heart set on becoming an air hostess and I doubt whether she would get a job like that if her teeth weren't straight. 

Our dentist also went private a few years ago and we had the choice of pay up or be without a dentist so I have to pay into the Denplan plan so that he would treat my children on the NHS otherwise they wouldn't have a dentist. 

Well I for one and you can call me shallow never regretted for one minute paying all that money to have her teeth made near to perfect.  Her confidence has grown 10 fold and there is nothing as cruel as children and her teeth were the cause of her bullying during her early years in junior school.  The reason I paid was to advance the treatment as I'm sure she would have been given NHS treatment anyway and all I did was bring the treatment forward.  I say to anyone to go for it if it's required and if not leave alone. 

One or two members on here know my daughter personally and she is a bright individual with all her values in the right place at 15, she is not some model in the making.  Both my sons are severely short sighted and will always have free eye tests due to the severity of the short sightedness and I paid for them to have contact lenses before they went to secondary school as again bullying with their milk bottle lenses was an issue.  Confidence again grew.

For my children I'd do anything.  Fortunate we can afford it (with help of MIL!) maybe but if not I'd have got another job to fund the cost.

I would not call anyone shallow for wanting to do that for their children but do feel there has to be limits on what is available from public funding.

> With the huge increase in procedures that are now available the amount of tax everyone would have to pay to cover it would rise astronomically. With limited resources there has to be rationing, and it's only fair (IMO) that the most essential candidates for treatment get priority

We seem to be going off at a tangent here. ; (

Of course there has to priorities, I'm not talking of bleaching, veneers implants or diamond encrusted type treatment, if people want that they will have to pay.

At the very beginning of this thread there was made mention that if the teeth in a child are healthy and that they just didn't like to look of them they should be taught to except their differences and that we can't all be perfect.

Now, whilst I except that there are going to be several little wannabe Sugar Babes out there that want the nice straight white teeth that the pop stars have, there are also children with crooked teeth that over a period of time will get cavities due to 'food traps' that not even the bendiest necked toothbrush could get into, and teeth that will have premature wear due to a bad bite.

These teeth don't always have to look too bad to the uneducated eye, if on a scale factor of 1 to 5 you score 3 (1= good, 2=acceptable, 3=poor, 4=very poor, 5=bad) then a score of 3 should be treated by the NHS. If left untreated, putting aside any distress that the child might feel about having crooked teeth, you run the risk of more problems in later life. More fillings, extractions etc, which because of their lower cost will be covered by the NHS, then we move into the denture situation.

So prevention is better than cure, straighten score 3 and above teeth out on the NHS, grade 2 and below privately.

Now, Im off to polish my glass eye, put a coat of paint on the wooden leg, pump up the false boobs and check on the OH willy job, (all NHS of course)
Keep yourselves sweet for me and I'll be back later.
xxxx

Sorry Isabel, didn't mean you were calling me shallow.

> So prevention is better than cure, straighten score 3 and above teeth out on the NHS, grade 2 and below privately.
>

That is what they are doing isn't it?  The orthodontists may not have the setting quite where you might put it but I suspect the criteria is very much as you say and based on what can be reasonably maintained with a good hygiene routine.

  That's me in me non NHS lenses by the way :-D

Yeh but Isabel you wear 'em' with style :)

Ok this is going to make alot of you hate me!!!
This is the list of treatments I have had over the years.
1. Junior veneers on front 4 top teeth  at the age of 7 as I have flouridation of the teeth, and was called Tarmac teeth.
2. Removable braces to widen the roof of my mouth as it was too narrow aged about 10
3. Teeth removed from over crowding aged about 10
4. Fixed braces aged about 12
5. removable braces to keep teeth in place after fixed braces taken off.
6. Porceline Veneers replacing the junior ones aged 16
7. teeth extraction
Refered to the Maxillo unit at the hospital :-
8. Fixed braces aged 18 - 21
9. A bi maxillary osteotomy (move top jaw forward and up, and bottom jaw back, meaning 5 hours on theatre 1 night in the high dependancy unit, 5 days in hospital, 6 weeks with jaw wired up.
10. Removable braces to keep teeth in place after fixed came off.
11. more porceline veneers due to them being broken with braces and jaw op
12. At least one new veneer since then due to them dropping off.

All of this has meant that I am a different person. My Jaw op was due to a protruding bottom jaw.
I ws bullied all the way through school and had very very low self confidence. If I hadnt had any of this I dont know where I would be now, but I know I wouldnt be the confident young women that I am. People saw the change in me especially after the op!!!!
I now need to have my veneers replaced by crowns as they are forever popping off, but I have been told the NHS crowns I wouldnt want :(
So until I can afford the £800 - £1000 for the 2 that need replacing I have to keep going back to have them re fixed.
I havnt paid for any of this treatment nor has my mum, it has all been on the NHS.
And for that I am MOST grateful as I am deffinatly a different person!!!
So to al of you that think braces shouldnt be dne on the NHS I am sorry, but I surpass most people fr amount of treatments LOL
But I do think dentures should be available on the NHS aswell!!!!
Lea :) :)

> So to al of you that think braces shouldnt be dne on the NHS I am sorry

Why should you be sorry, Lea :-)  Nobody has said braces should not be done under the NHS only that there needs to be some degrees of necessity applied.

Don't hate you at all Lea, all that you have had done was done because it needed to be done.

The protruding bottom jaw runs in my family plus crossed over top front teeth and so bent inwards that they gave no bite surface. I was lucky that 3 years of plates and braces plus growing a 'mouth big enough' ;0  to house all my teeth did away with need for me to have any ops.

re the elderly - just to add......................my late Uncle did the same job as my Dad. He however never married and lived with his sister (my Aunt) and her family. He earned the same as my Dad, had no wife or children to keep and just paid housekeeping to my Aunt. He decided to spend all his money throughout his life - didn't save a penny. He was then moved into a flat in a residential care home. He was given all the benefits under the sun (remember, he had the same wage as my Dad until he was 62). When he needed dental work everything was paid for and he had free dentures. That's where this country goes wrong and where hard working people like my parents lose out. They have no real luxuries and a lot of my Mum's savings have gone towards dad's funeral.
There should be 'some' free care for everybody so that millions don't miss out but where the money goes really needs to be re-evaluated.

How could any one hate you!!
I think you are very lucky.
My eldest son had extensive orthodontics done too. I considered him to be very fortunate that the system was in place for him.
My sister had the same surgery as you did and as there was no provision it had to be paid for privately. she was then in her 20's and had to organize it herself as my parents could not afford it for her as a child. (poor girl was also ginger with jam jar bottom thick glasses)
They have since withdrawn all funding (except exceptional cases), I would do what was necessary to pay for my other children,as yes I do think that mental health is as imprtant as physical.
But, when the money starts to get short I still think cosmetics have to be at the bottom of the health pile.
Karen

Um you still get an allowance towards a  childs glasses. I was Unlucky (Lucky) enough to have a child born with a club foot - all corrected on NHS. A squint (cast) in one eye ditto on NHS and teeth fixed on NHS. (We always said if he was a dog he would have been put down) he then at 8months developed asthma.
I pay now for his teeth, private medical and Denplan because i was so so grateful that when I was a single parent all was covered on NHS. Can I state here I also did two jobs had a tremendosly supportive familt that shared childcare so i could work and I have NEVER had income support, CSA nothing apart from NHS.
Sam now has contacts (£26 a month) Denplan (£13) private medical (on my company policy) I can afford to pay now so I do. BUT, I think that children should get free NHS on teeth, eyes, feet whatever because families (most) have paid their tax's and NI for eons and should all be based on equality for all. OK thats simplistic but its what I think.
Now lm ok for money, so I continue to pay as Sam still is asthmatic, due to excessive use of sterroids ect has osteoperosis at 21. I need him to be "safe" for all eventualities so i still work two jobs its my choice.
But as a younger adult I could not have afforded the care and things he needed for his health and well being and that should not be means tested.
A bite is important, it can cause wear on teeth and abcesses in the mouth if left, yes some is cosmetic, I do think we are fashioned led with an ideal in mind. I have awful teeth all misaligned, you could say Ive done ok but that does not mean I would subject my kids to my "buck teeth" I cannot close my mouth properly!! Luckily my OH couldn't care less, but I certainly have made sure both my boys have "good mouths".
But I still feel instinctively its wrong to have to go into hock for a childs teeth.
My Mum & Dad have both had false teeth Mum by 19!!! But they were born in the 1930's surly we have at least progressed further than that. I do not begrudge any of my tax's going to dentists rather that than MP's and their baggage and rent boys (Im from Winchester Mark Oaten and all that).

Nice one Whistler :)

I don't think that there is anyone who wouldn't want the best of everything to be provided for all of us, especially for children, but a fact of life is that everyone just cannot have everything that they want - it's a simple as that - and so decisions have to be made and prioities set.  Obviously we will disagree how those priorities are set because we all have different life experiences.

Orthodentists, as most professionals, will be passionate about their work and if they think there is a need, they will grade the child so that the work can be carried out.  They will look at the child's mouth objectively, taking the longterm need for prudence rather than the cosmetic and emotional view that any Mother will take.

> That's where this country goes wrong and where hard working people like my parents lose out.

Couldn't agree more. There really is no recognition for helping yourself these days, only punishment.

M.

Think this is where it is hard for people in general to get their heads round.

You have a huge % of working class people both working full time paying reasonable contributions into the NHS pot but not having a big enough disposable income to cover these such likes but feel that as they do contibute so much they are entitled. Perhaps even previously not having had to use any of these "extra" services provided in their opinion.

Perhaps the Government should allow people to opt out of contributions to the Dental part of the NHS and allow them to pay for private dental care instead. That would be interesting. 

I am not entirely sure what % of out NI dedictions goes into the pot but just doing a quick calculation of a few people in my close area who happen to have a salary slip,  salaries between £32K and £48K NI deductions between £242 and £388 every month.  

I think the problem lies outside this one area but the state of our country in general.   Working class seem to get less and less and the non contributors seem to get more and more. ( by non contributors I don't not mean those having genuinely previous contributed well ie pensioners etc)

I agree that the whole welfare state (country?) needs completely reorganising, encouraging those who do their best to look after themselves and to give a very basic safety net for those who don't! :( 

You can see where people could get upset. If you had a joint income of say for example £100K and were paying £900 a month in national insurance contributions ( whatever % of that goes to the dental, does anyone know? )  then found out you had been turned down for something that had previous always been covered you can understand someone being miffed IMHO.  I am in no way turning this into a low income x larger income debate but just looking at it from all avenues.

I had my first set of braces 30 years ago, living in Canada my parents had a private healthcare plan that they paid for that covered braces.    I needed a final retainer just for 6 months to stop the corrective work moving arriving in the UK. Both parents working in good jobs. This retainer was provided by the NHS.

Another thing that also had a big factor is some of the ridiculous prices we are now seeing charged for any procedure , this will be having a huge drain. I believe prices are over inflated and the NHS pot is being wrong drained by this. The Health Minister needs to be looking at charges.

> Perhaps the Government should allow people to opt out of contributions to the Dental part of the NHS and allow them to pay for private dental care instead.

We are not just paying for ourselves, though.  To do such a thing would make an even smaller pot for those unable to opt out. 

> I agree that the whole welfare state (country?) needs completely reorganising, encouraging those who do their best to look after themselves and to give a very basic safety net for those who don't!

Isn't that what we have?  Do you mean we should all contribute more to increase the basics.  I would be happy to but it never seems a very popular idea come election time.

Isn't that what we have?

Not in the town that I live in, I have no personal experience elsewhere.  I do some work with people who 'hold their hands out' and they have more disposable income than those here who are working 2 jobs and still struggling to pay their bills. :(

> I do some work with people who 'hold their hands out' and they have more disposable income than those here who are working 2 jobs and still struggling to pay their bills.

There is certainly a cross over between benefits and low incomes but at least those on low incomes have the prospects that work bring in bettering youself that benefits will never have or pride which is still of some value to some people.  To increase the differential would be to either reduce benefits which are pretty miserable as they are or to increase minimum wages which, in this climate particularly, would mean a lot of businesses would be done for thus pushing unemployment even higher than we are expecting anyway.

We are not just paying for ourselves, though.  To do such a thing would make an even smaller pot for those unable to opt out. 

Oh without a doubt, but there had to be a happy medium and we dont seem to have it , those who work hard , and pay into the pot seem to be the heaviest penalised sadly.  

at least those on low incomes have the prospects that work bring in bettering youself that benefits will never have or pride which is still of some value to some people.

Unfortunately that value and pride are diminishing when people see first hand what is happening in their own street.  Let me give you an example.  1 adult 70 years old and other adult 54 and working 2 jobs but no children at home, no drinking, smoking, social life and struggling to run a very small old car and worrying about what bills are coming in and doesn't have the money to buy new dentures or even £25 to get her old ones repaired.  Their next door neighbours, young fit unemployed parents with 4 children,  one more on the way "as it will increase our benefits and we won't notice another one, the older ones will look after it!"  Mother and all the children have the latest trainers, hair coloured, false nails, a new game for their X box every month, run a bigger newer car, buy the kids Indian/Chinese/Pizza a couple of times a week while they go out to a local hostelry and drink so much that they are invariably helped out of the gutter by caring neighbours on the way home each time!

I find it increasingly difficult to regulary help the young couple claim more and more (£360 per week disposable income at the moment!) and explain to the older couple that there is nothing more I can suggest to help them. :(  And this is just one example of what I see week after week. :(

We should be helping the vulnerable and those who have hit a bad patch, not creating a new way of life that perpetuates through the generations - both these young parents come from similar families and the number are increasing, like pryamid selling!.  Neither are particularly well educated and are not encouraging their children to do any better.  He could never get a job to pay him what he received in benefits and so he goes to interview 'with attitude' so that they don't want him.  He's actually doing the best that he can for his family.  He's not wrong, but the system that encourages it IS!  And that's not going into other anomalies with those from other countries ......

I'll comment no more as this is going off topic but people have to realise that there just isn't enough money for for everyone to have everything that they want, even if we'd all like it to be that way!

It really does need a whole new rethink...the welfare state......The theory is wonderful and I think we are all agreed on that, but as whistler has explained it is not working the way it was meant to.
There is only so much to go around and there are always going to be too  many people who 'work the system'. And those that stretched to the limit with no where else to go.
Karen

>not creating a new way of life that perpetuates through the generations - both these young parents come from similar families and the number are increasing

Absolutely! Benefits were never meant to be a career choice, and they are being allowed to be.

M.

> Benefits were never meant to be a career choice, and they are being allowed to be.
>

It is only since the very recent recession that unemployment figures have risen.  Prior to that the figures have fallen steadily and significantly since the early 1990's so I am not sure that peoples perception of the work shy is quite correct.

You may well be right on the extent, Isabel. I do know several people who would earn only slightly more by going to work than they would on benefits, so they don't feel the need to return to work with the additional effort and indeed expense that requires. To be honest, you can almost see their point!

I was brought up to work for a living though. Yes, it should be there to support those who need it (temporarily, as circumstances demand) - no, it should not be there for those who don't have sufficient pride to wish to work to support and better themselves.

M.

It also is a self respect issue in my eyes.

Karen

Haven't been online recently so have been amazed at replies to my original post.  Thank you Nicola for your input - I'm glad someone is of the same opinion as myself.  The work needed on my daughter's teeth will be fairly extensive.  The only reasons she saw the orthodonist is because her dentist referred her and he was under the impression she would receive free treatment, because he thought it was bad enough to warrant it.  It's not just a case of 'tidying up' to achieve perfect teeth.  Imagine biting into a sandwich, but your front teeth can't reach the bread because they are too high!  She has to bite at the side of her mouth to be able to make contact with her food!  So as you see it's not purely for cosmetic reasons. 

My argument (which wasn't really an argument, just a moan) is that up until the last year and a half or so, her treatment would have been paid for, and also other minor treatments would also have been paid for.  That was the whole idea of the welfare state to begin with.  I know the tories mostly destroyed that, or tried to.  But children shouldn't miss out, just because parents can't afford to pay for the treatment.

The cost of everything has risen so dramatically that unless you are pretty well off, people just don't have as much available income any more.

And maybe there aren't many NHS dentists in Channel Islands because the Channel Islands are considered far too affluent to warrant them ... just a thought.

I've been seeing a private dentist for the past 12 years because
a.  His treatment was better and
b.  He was cheaper than the NHS dentist that I had seen for the previous 15 years!!

No.....there is simply no such thing as NHS here in the CIs.
Making us all very conscious of managing our own health matters.
In the last few years our ni contributions were increased greatly to cover specialist medical treament (surgery etc).
We still have to pay for GPs, blood tests and so on. Generally we were all shocked and saddened at the withdrawl of dental care for school children, but do understand it to a degree.
And yes there are some very wealthy folk around who do prefer to pay there own any way.(that doesn't mean me)

Karen

It is only since the very recent recession that unemployment figures have risen.  Prior to that the figures have fallen steadily and significantly since the early 1990's so I am not sure that peoples perception of the work shy is quite correct.

Unemployment figures are pretty much the same but the numbers especially between 25 and 45 years old " claiming" sickness and disability have soured to a terrible level.  We have a breed of people who know how to work the system.

> " claiming" sickness and disability have soured to a terrible level.  We have a breed of people who know how to work the system.

Well that includes me, I've just been seen by a DWP doctor & allowed IB for the next three years.

I would love to be able to get a job, but no one would employ me due to my health problems. I have to use a voice program to type on the PC & Laptop because most of the time I cannot type due to the pain in my hands & the stiffness in them.

I have been gainfully employed since leaving college & up to the time when my ands just became too painful for me to continue I had had a grand total of 14 days off sick in over 33 years & this included 1 day off after being attacked @ work & having my leg broken I went back with my leg in a cast & on crutches

The vast majority of IB receipients are genuine & more money is actually leached out of the benefits system by bent landlords receiving Housing Benefits for imaginary properties.

Well that includes me, I've just been seen by a DWP doctor & allowed IB for the next three years.

I would love to be able to get a job, but no one would employ me due to my health problems. I have to use a voice program to type on the PC & Laptop because most of the time I cannot type due to the pain in my hands & the stiffness in them.

I have been gainfully employed since leaving college & up to the time when my ands just became too painful for me to continue I had had a grand total of 14 days off sick in over 33 years & this included 1 day off after being attacked @ work & having my leg broken I went back with my leg in a cast & on crutches


I would say your case being geunine doesn't include you.    Of course there are genuine cases. My poor father work in an executive role all his working life mid 60s, lost both his legs, the use of one of his arms and is half blind.  Luck they have always been savers.  

The vast majority of IB receipients are genuine

Well the polititians , government and their stats are saying otherwise.    I can't remember the actual number, I quoted it recently on here from a report I read. 

& more money is actually leached out of the benefits system by bent landlords receiving Housing Benefits for imaginary properties.    Where did you read or hear this moonmaiden.   I think that has to be impossible to be true unless every single  landlord in the country would have to have an imaginary property.

This country is in a terrible state with the "non genuine spongers" and they are in their millions and I mean millions to the point government are openly speaking about it. This is the biggest problem they have now.   They just moved from unemployment over to the sickness scheme.  One figure got better the other has soured.

No reasonable person begrudges genuine sick or unemployed people MM.  IMO that's exactly what the welfare system is for.   But we all know of too many who play the system when they should be working, and with so little money in the pot these days, if the genuine people are going to be supported, then non essential treatments have to be excluded.

30 seconds on google gave me this..

1980s we had 700,000  claimants        2008 we have over 2.7 MILLION.. !!!!!!!!!!!

As much as 7% of Britain's working age population is now economically inactive due to long term sickness, compared to 2.1% in Germany and 0.3% in France.

The number of jobless people moving on to sickness benefit is soaring by 3,000 a week, the Government has been warned.  Officials now believe many jobless people are exploiting a loophole in the rules by persuading their GPs to sign them off as sick when their six-month period on unemployment benefit ends. This means they avoid being called to interviews with Jobcentre staff under the New Deal programme ­ and escape sanctions, including cuts in their benefits, if they refuse to attend or turn down offers of jobs and training.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ministers-may-risk-rebellion-over-soaring-claims-for-sickness-benefit-683544.html

1.9m on benefit 'should go back to work' Up to two thirds of people claiming incapacity benefit are not entitled to the state handout, the Government's new welfare adviser warns today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/1577312/1.9m-on-benefit-[/url]'should-go-back-to-work'.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/1577313/Welfare-is-a-mess%2C-says-adviser-David-Freud.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/sep/05/socialsciences.research

http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-news/2008/10/27/clampdown-starts-on-people-claiming-sickness-benefit-65233-22130174/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1028563/800-000-sicknote-benefits-claiming-10-years.html

These are just opinions Blue.  There will probably always be dodgers and there is no doubt that the adminstration and policing needs to be robust but really you would expect the figures to rise on IB as a reflection of better awareness of available benefits and a society that is going to be more understanding of peoples difficulties than we were 20/30 years ago.

These are just opinions Blue

1980s we had 700,000  claimants        2008 we have over 2.7 MILLION.. !!!!!!!!!!!

As much as 7% of Britain's working age population is now economically inactive due to long term sickness, compared to 2.1% in Germany and 0.3% in France.

These are not opinions.

you would expect the figures to rise on IB as a reflection of better awareness of available benefits and a society that is going to be more understanding of peoples difficulties than we were 20/30 years ago.

Nice in theory BUT we have a disablilty act in full force and we see more and more people with disablilites working so I don't think that arguement works.

I think the facts in numbers speak for themselves. 

The reasons why are opinions.

The reasons why are opinions.

Opinions based on statistics? 

> Opinions based on statistics? 

Not sure what you mean.

>1980s we had 700,000  claimants        2008 we have over 2.7 MILLION.. !!!!!!!!!!!

We must a very sick nation which needs to drastically change its lifestyle.

> We must a very sick nation which needs to drastically change its lifestyle.

Lifestyle may well be one of the reasons for the increase.