Independence - how would you vote?

[xbl]

I'm not a populist. I don't care what the majority think. I care what smart people who are fair-minded think.

I don't propose that YesScotland "commit political suicide" over anything. You know this is the case.

I know that your proposals are the equivalent of political suicide. Some of our sea and some of our land, tuition fees, currency, Europe, demands that the Scottish Government set out every last detail while giving the British a free pass, all the equivalent to political suicide.

And smart people who are fair-minded will know that I'm right.

[Swampy]

For an example of this evidence of just not bothering to read my posts and deciding that I've said the opposite of what I've said, take a look below:

And these prompt:

At least *try* to be fair-minded observers here. How can you deduce from those two paragraphs contained in those previous posts that I was "ideologically attached" to means testing and prefer being "ideologically pure" with "punitive inefficiency" and "a more expensive policy" so long as it "prevents people from benefitting" by "getting something for nothing that they don't deserve"?

Because it is cheaper, demonstrably so, yet you keep banging the drum for means testing because bile rises in your throat at the very notion that They Didn't Work Hard Enough For That.

[Wee Bully]

I'm offended by means testing, as I am a higher rate tax payer. So in essence, my tax is used to pay for everyone else's prescriptions, and yet it is then deemed fair that I pay again.

It is not, as Lamont would say, something for nothing. It is something for something.

[Swampy]

I'm offended by means testing, as I am a higher rate tax payer. So in essence, my tax is used to pay for everyone else's prescriptions, and yet it is then deemed fair that I pay again.

It is not, as Lamont would say, something for nothing. It is something for something.

If it's the fiscal aspect that offends you, it should be offence at being asked to throw money down the bureaucratic black hole that is means testing, when universality is both cheaper and more conducive to public health, which is in turn more conducive to lessening even more expensive in-patient complications.

Or you could go down the Ad Lib model so beloved in much of the USA, where basic, primary care is a luxury, but because you can't leave people to die in the streets, you are left subsidizing emergency, in-patient care when once-manageable conditions inevitably devolve into something life-threatening. Then you get the added bonus of saddling the near-dead with vast levels of debt, all of which is managed once again by a huge, bureaucratic army.

[Swampy]

This is particularly close to my heart as me and my wife's ex-flatmate is currently going through the exact issue described above, and is on the verge of bankruptcy due to the vagaries of the means-testing system that only a trained lawyer* can fully comprehend. She is spending literally upwards of ten hours a day navigating the means-testing system here. This is far from unusual. But hey, at least she didn't get Something For Nothing, and we avoided the dread moral quandary of universality, so if she dies young and penniless, y'know, there's that.

*Readers may note a stunning coincidence here.

[H_B]

Yes Scotland "2 men and a dug" setup in Stirling High Street today. No sign of Rory McGrath lookalikes, but there was the obligatory large woman who might have been pregnant.

I refrained from abusing her, as there was a large angry queue to do so, and I hadn't booked a place in advance.

[Wee Bully]

If it's the fiscal aspect that offends you, it should be offence at being asked to throw money down the bureaucratic black hole that is means testing, when universality is both cheaper and more conducive to public health, which is in turn more conducive to lessening even more expensive in-patient complications.

Or you could go down the Ad Lib model so beloved in much of the USA, where basic, primary care is a luxury, but because you can't leave people to die in the streets, you are left subsidizing emergency, in-patient care when once-manageable conditions inevitably devolve into something life-threatening. Then you get the added bonus of saddling the near-dead with vast levels of debt, all of which is managed once again by a huge, bureaucratic army.

I wouldn't go down either. I am completely for universality, given I've already f***ing paid for it through my taxes.

[nowthennowthen]

My points are easily understood by anyone who actually reads the words contained within them and anyone who can't understand them doesn't deserve my respect and should probably be subjected to an IQ test to confirm they're still suitable to vote.

Remember you're posting in the general nonsense part of a fitbaw forum. You are sounding like a complete bell-end.

[Ad Lib]

Because it is cheaper, demonstrably so, yet you keep banging the drum for means testing because bile rises in your throat at the very notion that They Didn't Work Hard Enough For That.

Complete unadulterated lie in respect of every single word you've just uttered. You have not "demonstrated" that all forms of means testing are cheaper than fully state-funded prescriptions in all circumstances. You haven't even shown that Scotland saved money by doing away with means testing, though as I said before, I am completely comfortable with the change provided the Scottish Government can prove that it saved money and hasn't detrimentally affected the range of medication available *at all* on the NHS.

I am not banging any drum or saying that anyone didn't work hard enough for any medication. I find that suggestion gratuitously offensive and completely baseless. The people I want to pay for prescriptions are not those who struggle to make ends meet. I am advocating a needs-based system rather than a desert-based system. Universalism's cries of economic rights are far more rooted in the world-view of "entitlement" and "desert" than a system which looks purely at who needs healthcare support and who doesn't, based on their means.

The people I suggest should pay for their healthcare are those who are perfectly capable of paying for their own prescriptions without assistance and even then only in situations where it puts the state funded healthcare system in a better position to treat other people who cannot procure healthcare on that same said service because it is a treatment or a drug that the NHS doesn't pay for at all. I am saying that wherever and to whatever extent that it can be shown that means testing increases to any extent the access and breadth of healthcare the NHS provides, we should means test a service. That isn't ideological; that's about utlitiarian outcomes. It's pragmatism.

Indeed it's a more open-minded view than you take, in that I am suggesting we don't have enough evidence yet to say definitively that all means testing is inefficient and leads to worse outcomes in this area. You have already made your mind up about that, and it's becoming increasingly apparent you've done so based on healthcare system on another continent, which I have never defended and which is a perversion of genuinely means-based support and a country in which the intellectual property laws are the principle reason for drugs being so ruinously expensive and inaccessible to those who need them.

I appreciate you live in a backwards excuse for a civilisation. Don't take your anger about that out on people with the audacity to suggest that universal benefits aren't always even universal and aren't always the best models for the outcomes people want.

[xbl]

I wouldn't go down either. I am completely for universality, given I've already f***ing paid for it through my taxes.

Whenever I hear someone say that they support means testing because the rich earn more money, a wee alarm bell goes off in my head. I then have a look at the poster, and consider what their answer would be if they were asked "do the rich pay too much tax", and then put two and two together. In almost all cases, the conclusion is that they don't really want the rich to pay more. Its just an excuse they make to justify their position, because the truth isn't acceptable.

Incidentally, I'm watching that independence debate now. Awful tv. I'm only watching it out of duty. Half an hour in, and the moderator has 100% lost control of the debate, Sarwar has repeated the pensions lie (see Reynard), and had it repealed by ONS statistics (see xbl), and is coming across like an awful, awful person. Although to be fair, he is doing what he clearly intended to do, which was drag Sturgeon down to his level and verbally slug it out, so from his position, it is probably mission accomplished.

Sturgeon has had better performances, but more because she doesn't have any choice here. Sarwar is effectively dragging her down to his level without actually contributing himself, and so I can kind of see why they call it a draw, based on the first half hour alone. What an awful person Sarwar is though, is he aware of how badly he is coming across?

Do I have to watch the second half? This is like an hour of Ad Lib and HB.

[Ad Lib]

Whenever I hear someone say that they support means testing because the rich earn more money, a wee alarm bell goes off in my head. I then have a look at the poster, and consider what their answer would be if they were asked "do the rich pay too much tax", and then put two and two together. In almost all cases, the conclusion is that they don't really want the rich to pay more. Its just an excuse they make to justify their position, because the truth isn't acceptable.

Not guilty. I think the rich should pay more tax, principally in capital gains and wealth taxes.

[xbl]

Not guilty. I think the rich should pay more tax, principally in capital gains and wealth taxes.

Ah, an evolution in political views! Are you on your way out of the Liberal Democrats then? Next stop, socialism?

Debate catch up update. I made it through the cross examination. Jesus. Bloodbath. Sarwar was fairly effective in that he kept muttering his way through Sturgeon's answers to his questions, interrupting her, and then claiming she never answered his questions, when he did, but he did construct a fairly decent attack argument, albeit based on mistruths. So to be fair, he probably got the advantage there. I think Sturgeon did well not to march across to him and cuff him round the ear, but points to Sarwar.

But then Sturgeon's turn, and jesus. Sarwar just got destroyed. Sturgeon put her points crisply and clearly, and didn't interrupt so much, at first. Once he'd waffled his way into some pretty deep holes, she then asked simple questions, and kept asking them, while he muttered, weaved and deflected. Definite points to Sturgeon there, and the overall victory.

However, while Sarwar did indeed come across like an awful individual, he made Sturgeon come across worse than usual (although still better than him), so not a complete embarrassment. He's probably one of Labour's more effective attack dogs, in that, like Jim Murphy, he's mastered the art of being so irritating that he makes other people come across badly.

[vikingTON]

Nonsense. Ad Lib briefly flirted with favouring independence, much in the same way he flirted with Tory paternalism, classical liberalism and woodchopping individualism. All it needs is a conversion to Marxism and we have the full house from a busted flush who adopts the last perspective to be hurrahed at the Law School cheese and wine function.

Nobody's impressed.

Shocked and appalled at this turn of events, naturally.

[10 CC ICT]

So we can help more poor people with more drugs by only supporting them instead of rich people, or we can feel better about ourselves that although someone on income support can't get the rare new cancer drug they need, hey at least they didn't have to tick a box. YAY!

It's almost as though people didn't read my posts or something. I said quite clearly on several occasions that if you can demonstrate that all and every means testing system for prescription medication costs more to administer and fails to widen access to clinically desirable medication in Scotland, then the policy of fully-funded state prescriptions should remain. I'm merely saying that the justification for it is not the "inherent moral worth of universalism" rather the utilitarian value of that specific programme relative to its practical alternatives.

That is an unadulterated lie not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

So, in summary. In order to keep what we have we should spend a shitload of money proving it saves money? Are you on the fast-track to Westminster?

I'm not whinging. I'm belittling the inferior entities on the thread.

You can't fool a fool, a fool that tries to fool a fool is a bigger fool than the fool they're trying to make a fool of.

My points are easily understood by anyone who actually reads the words contained within them and anyone who can't understand them doesn't deserve my respect and should probably be subjected to an IQ test to confirm they're still suitable to vote.

Your unionist side is creeping out.

I don't want reading my posts to be fun. I want people to give up after reading my posts. I want them to morally bleed with irritation.That is my purpose on this forum.

If people don't want to read my posts in their entirety and carefully, I have no objection. What I object to is responses which clearly haven't even attempted to read my argument in full, such that they accuse me of saying things that are fundamentally the opposite of what I've said on several occasions.

This forum would be a lot better if everyone treated it like Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court. Jeremy Black would most certainly like this.

You're really up yourself aren't you? You think your opinions count for more than anyone else's on here but although your pc may be within the confines of your bedroom walls, the internet is expansive into the real world (the bit with green and grey stuff on the floor).

I don't think you need to have that expansive a means testing system. There are different ways you can do it. Provided it saves money, I'm happy to do it based on class-based exemptions (like children, OAPs, those on disability and income related benefits) and if expedient, further income assessments if they would further save money which could go back into widening the base of NHS prescriptions.

Assessments? How much has ATOS saved? How much has it cost? Come on, your party's in power in Westminster and making a howling cunt of it, yet you want to impose their policies in Scotland.

Go and take a flying fuck to yourself.

[Swampy]

Indeed it's a more open-minded view than you take, in that I am suggesting we don't have enough evidence yet to say definitively that all means testing is inefficient and leads to worse outcomes in this area. You have already made your mind up about that, and it's becoming increasingly apparent you've done so based on healthcare system on another continent, which I have never defended and which is a perversion of genuinely means-based support and a country in which the intellectual property laws are the principle reason for drugs being so ruinously expensive and inaccessible to those who need them.

How would you go about gathering this evidence?

[Jamaldo]

Complete unadulterated lie in respect of every single word you've just uttered. You have not "demonstrated" that all forms of means testing are cheaper than fully state-funded prescriptions in all circumstances. You haven't even shown that Scotland saved money by doing away with means testing, though as I said before, I am completely comfortable with the change provided the Scottish Government can prove that it saved money and hasn't detrimentally affected the range of medication available *at all* on the NHS.

I am not banging any drum or saying that anyone didn't work hard enough for any medication. I find that suggestion gratuitously offensive and completely baseless. The people I want to pay for prescriptions are not those who struggle to make ends meet. I am advocating a needs-based system rather than a desert-based system. Universalism's cries of economic rights are far more rooted in the world-view of "entitlement" and "desert" than a system which looks purely at who needs healthcare support and who doesn't, based on their means.

The people I suggest should pay for their healthcare are those who are perfectly capable of paying for their own prescriptions without assistance and even then only in situations where it puts the state funded healthcare system in a better position to treat other people who cannot procure healthcare on that same said service because it is a treatment or a drug that the NHS doesn't pay for at all. I am saying that wherever and to whatever extent that it can be shown that means testing increases to any extent the access and breadth of healthcare the NHS provides, we should means test a service. That isn't ideological; that's about utlitiarian outcomes. It's pragmatism.

Indeed it's a more open-minded view than you take, in that I am suggesting we don't have enough evidence yet to say definitively that all means testing is inefficient and leads to worse outcomes in this area. You have already made your mind up about that, and it's becoming increasingly apparent you've done so based on healthcare system on another continent, which I have never defended and which is a perversion of genuinely means-based support and a country in which the intellectual property laws are the principle reason for drugs being so ruinously expensive and inaccessible to those who need them.

I appreciate you live in a backwards excuse for a civilisation. Don't take your anger about that out on people with the audacity to suggest that universal benefits aren't always even universal and aren't always the best models for the outcomes people want.

[Ad Lib]

Ah, an evolution in political views! Are you on your way out of the Liberal Democrats then? Next stop, socialism?

Liberal Democrats have been in favour of capital gains and wealth taxes for decade. I'm not sure why you think my belief that they are better ways of maximising revenue from the rich than higher income tax rates means I'm going to leave the party. If anything my views on this are more in-line with party policy than when I became a member in April 2011.

So, in summary. In order to keep what we have we should spend a shitload of money proving it saves money? Are you on the fast-track to Westminster?

No. If we can get more than what we have at the moment by saving more money on means testing than its costs to administer, then we should do it.

Your unionist side is creeping out.

I've never made any secret of my scepticism of democracy.

You're really up yourself aren't you? You think your opinions count for more than anyone else's on here but although your pc may be within the confines of your bedroom walls, the internet is expansive into the real world (the bit with green and grey stuff on the floor).

I use an iPad.

Assessments? How much has ATOS saved? How much has it cost? Come on, your party's in power in Westminster and making a howling cunt of it, yet you want to impose their policies in Scotland.

Go and take a flying fuck to yourself.

Right, so because ATOS, whose primary function is to assess your fitness to work, not your income, has problems with assessments, no state support should be assessed on the basis of income? M'kay.

How would you go about gathering this evidence?

Regional trials, data analysis of a variety of international examples, audited modelling. Why, how did you arrive at your conclusion that drugs either fully state funded or not at all is always the most cost-effective approach to the broadest service? What evidence are you relying upon other than one particularly bad example of means testing in a country with a completely different health system structure and particular problems with the regulation and cost of pharmeceuticals because of intellectual property rights? Have you nothing to say about NHS England's Cancer Drugs Fund, which Scotland hasn't got an equivalent of?

[xbl]

Have you nothing to say about NHS England's Cancer Drugs Fund, which Scotland hasn't got an equivalent of?

I just went to google, because I didn't really know anything about this.

http://www.pharmatimes.com/article/13-04-05/Cancer_Drugs_Fund_approved_drugs_culled.aspx

Sounds great. I then, as I didn't know anything about the Scottish system, and never ever trust anything a Unionist tells me, had another quick google:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/experts-reject-call-for-scotland-cancer-drugs-fund-1-2922858

A SPECIAL fund to pay for drugs to treat cancer victims should not be established in Scotland, experts said yesterday. Two senior academics who carried out a review into Scotland’s system of approving drugs said they did not believe cancer should be singled out from other diseases.

...

Appearing before the Scottish Parliament’s health committee yesterday, professors Philip Routledge and Charles Swainson rejected the calls.

Prof Routledge, who is a professor of clinical pharmacology at Cardiff University, said: 
“I would be loathe to single cancer out from other conditions which shorten life or reduce the quality of life significantly.” And Prof Swainson, a former medical director of NHS Lothian, agreed, saying that cancer drugs had to be considered alongside other medicines.

All drugs have to be approved by the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) for use in Scottish hospitals. People can also make Individual Patient Treatment requests for items.

The review was ordered by health secretary Alex Neil after concerns were raised by some doctors, charities and patients about access to medicines.

But the two experts said yesterday that they had concluded that Scotland’s system was a “very good one”. However, they recommend that it can be improved by boosting transparency, so that people can see why decisions are being made.

...

Cancer charities such as Macmillan and Breakthrough Breast Cancer Care have held back from supporting a dedicated cancer fund for Scotland on the grounds that the existing system should be reformed to ensure fair access to medicines.

So essentially, Scottish government holds enquiry, summons experts, follow recommendations of experts. What exactly is the problem here?

[Ad Lib]

I just went to google, because I didn't really know anything about this.http://www.pharmatimes.com/article/13-04-05/Cancer_Drugs_Fund_approved_drugs_culled.aspxSounds great. I then, as I didn't know anything about the Scottish system, and never ever trust anything a Unionist tells me, had another quick google:http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/experts-reject-call-for-scotland-cancer-drugs-fund-1-2922858So essentially, Scottish government holds enquiry, summons experts, follow recommendations of experts. What exactly is the problem here?

I don't have a problem with the Scottish Government reaching that conclusion. But it would have meant having to get more money into the budget to be spent on drugs. They'd have to find that money somewhere, and prescription charges could have formed a part of that solution.

[10 CC ICT]

Bureaucracy is expensive however you look at it.

NHS England's Cancer Drugs Fund? Have you read this? http://www.pharmatimes.com/Article/13-05-09/England_s_Cancer_Drugs_Fund_widens_Scotland_urged_not_to_follow.aspx