No you arent, most people decide on acceptable limit for something and call the point there, you are just making ridiculous comparisons. If you are really advocating that the NHS should not be free in its services for the rich your policy would get virtually no support for a reason.

The winter fuel allowance was deemed to have an age cut off because there is not unlimited money, it is the best balance between not spending money that isn't there and not excluding massive amounts of the population. You also do not need to heat your home just as much as the elderly. With medical experience the reason why the elderly have these bills is 1) because of their lack of other income and 2) medically because they cannot regulate their temperature and other parameters as effectively as the fit, young population. Therefore, it is more important to provide better living conditions for them as a priority than it is the younger, adult population who are earning and putting up with the cold is far less likely to be life threatening. If you look into this you will see why those with chronic conditions also receive this support because of the impact the environment will have on them.

I did not add another condition, you asked about the winter fuel allowance so I just explained to you why it is given to the elderly as that is one of its key distinguishing parameters.

The balance was determined on how best to spend this money to avoid deaths in the aging population. Savings do not always work due to inflation, the elderly often lose significant amount of their savings in real term costs and energy prices are rising.

Bizarre? I'm just taking your logic to its natural conclusion.

Your argument was that wealthy people should get free prescriptions because they paid their taxes. Now your shifting the goal posts and saying it's because they're ill.

So let's take winter fuel allowance. I need to heat my home just as much as the elderly and I pay my taxes, so why shouldn't I receive it?

You'll say it's because I'm not elderly, and in doing so you've added another condition. It's not enough that I need to heat my home, I need to be elderly too.

Money that could be better spent on pioneering cancer treatments for example is instead being divided into tiny sums to subsidise hemorrhoid cream for people who can well afford it.

What a disgusting example. You clearly are an imbecile if you do not realise that firstly haemorrhoids (We are in the UK after all not the US) can reduce quality of life just as much as many types of cancers. Your trivialization of a condition is quite offensive. Go and observe colo-rectal haemorrhoid surgery and then come back to me.

Also do you have a medical degree with a specialisation into public health? Because I love how you assume that 1) Haemorrhoid cream is cheap. Please tell me the cost to the NHS for the various forms of treatment there are. You also forgot to include the cost for other treatments that you would give alongside it. Please tell me more about this cream and its active ingredient and then the purchasing cost for the NHS and then how much this would cost a member of the public.

2) Why in terms of quality life you think that haemorrhoids are so far down the list, I hope you aren't involved in medicine. I'll remember your approach next time a patient comes in with this and I'll tell him to man up, he aint got cancer so leave this appointment for somebody who isn't just whining. /s

I cannot believe the number of people who try to debate on the NHS when they have no idea about health, which is evident from your ideas. You'd be struck off and I sincerely hope you are never a doctor.