Jump to content

Independence - how would you vote?


Wee Bully

Independence - how would you vote  

1,135 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

According to the above link, the Scottish NHS has a total drug budget of £1.8 billion. Now, can anyone think of some Westminster white elephant projects that would otherwise allow for a £200 million increase, or even more?

It's a toughie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23984730

Verge of tears stuff for the British nationalists here. :lol:

But he used the opportunity to champion Britain, saying few other nations had "a prouder history, a bigger heart or greater resilience".

"Let me be clear - Britain may be a small island but I would challenge anyone to find a country with a prouder history, a bigger heart or greater resilience," he told reporters.

"Britain is an island that has helped to clear the European continent of fascism and was resolute in doing that throughout World War II.

^^^ Buckled nat f**k. <_<

"Britain is an island that helped to abolish slavery, that has invented most of the things worth inventing, including every sport currently played around the world, that still today is responsible for art, literature and music that delights the entire world.

Actually having slavery in the first place and then boasting about abolishing it = :lol:

"We are very proud of everything we do as a small island - a small island that has the sixth-largest economy, the fourth best-funded military, some of the most effective diplomats, the proudest history, one of the best records for art and literature and contribution to philosophy and world civilisation."

^^^ Too wee, too poor, too stupid. :angry:

Boasting about having the fourth best-funded military = :lol:

Saying we have the most effective diplomats = :lol:

Ignoring the British purging countries and citizens the world over for centuries = :lol:

He added: "For the people who live in Northern Ireland, I should say we are not just an island, we are a collection of islands. I don't want anyone in Shetland or Orkney to feel left out by this."

He repeated the speech at a press conference at the close of the two-day summit, adding in references to The Beatles, Shakespeare, Elgar and latest pop sensations One Direction.

Roflware. :lol:

"If I go on too long about our literature, our art, our philosophy, our contribution, including of course the world's language... if I start talking about this 'blessed plot, this sceptred isle, this England' I might have to put it to music, so I think I'll leave it there," he said.

Erm... England? England? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the above link, the Scottish NHS has a total drug budget of £1.8 billion. Now, can anyone think of some Westminster white elephant projects that would otherwise allow for a £200 million increase, or even more?

It's a toughie.

None come to mind. Free prescriptions are definitely the thing that is worth making the most noise about cutting. Interesting to see the argument shift though. Ad Lib uses the language of "Scotland doesn't have an equivalent", the experts use the language of "Scotland doesn't NEED an equivalent".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

We should do all of this in order to provide something that commissioned experts and cancer charities alike seem to feel that we don't even need?

You'd almost think this kind of harebrained, bureaucratic nightmare benefitted the parasitic lawyer class or something from the way you cheerlead for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None come to mind. Free prescriptions are definitely the thing that is worth making the most noise about cutting. Interesting to see the argument shift though. Ad Lib uses the language of "Scotland doesn't have an equivalent", the experts use the language of "Scotland doesn't NEED an equivalent".

It isn't and has never been about need: it's about ideological adherence to making sure nobody gets Something For Nothing first, and taking a kick at the Nats second.

Free prescriptions have been an (almost) unqualified success, so of course they need to be replaced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many cancer drugs could we get for our share of HS2? Ad Lib, you're the self-appointed expert in the field: do tell us.

Forget HS2, how about the money that the British Government has blown on their new universal credit scheme? Designed to solve a problem that doesn't exist on any real scale (the disgusting poors who choose to stay on benefits rather than work), and make sure that poor people have a worse life.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23971068

The setbacks the watchdog identified included:

Officials were "unable to explain" the reasoning behind the timescales or their feasibility

There were no "adequate measures" of progress

Computer systems lack the function to identify potentially fraudulent claims, relying instead on manual checks

£34m investment in IT systems was written off

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) lacked IT expertise and senior leadership

Delays to the rollout would reduce the expected benefits of reform

Expenditure on IT systems has accounted for more than 70% of the £425m spent to date but the report suggested officials did not yet know whether the infrastructure in place would support a national rollout.

So it was designed to solve a problem that didn't exist (or that was their reasoning), it can't do what it is allegedly supposed to do, it isn't working, its costing loads, and millions have been blown on nothing. On the good side, it is ideologically pure.

But free prescriptions are the real waste here! Get them cut!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23963867

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should do all of this in order to provide something that commissioned experts and cancer charities alike seem to feel that we don't even need?

You'd almost think this kind of harebrained, bureaucratic nightmare benefitted the parasitic lawyer class or something from the way you cheerlead for it.

For the umpeenth time, I haven't said we should do this. Learn to read my actual posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not said at any point that we couldn't cut other things to pay for a wider range of state-funded prescriptions, nor have I at any point said that means testing is the only solution. When people are quite finished arguing against things I haven't said we should do, perhaps we can have a grown-up discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not said at any point that we couldn't cut other things to pay for a wider range of state-funded prescriptions

Oh good. That means we can just cut the ties to Westminster vanity projects, pocket the cash, share a little with NHS Scotland while keeping free prescriptions, and kick your ideological posturing into the dustbin of Scottish politics, alongside your party.

Thanks for playing anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should do all of this in order to provide something that commissioned experts and cancer charities alike seem to feel that we don't even need?

You'd almost think this kind of harebrained, bureaucratic nightmare benefitted the parasitic lawyer class or something from the way you cheerlead for it.

I didn't say we should have a cancer drugs fund.

All I said was that (means tested) prescription charges can give you greater budgetary flexibility to increase the number of drugs for which the NHS provides prescription subsidy, and that when there is a demonstrable need for that wider range of drugs, such charges ought not to be ruled out on ideological grounds as part of the solution. I was not saying that Scotland should ape England, Dallas or Timbuktu. If Scotland feels it doesn't need a cancer drugs fund, that's absolutely fine. But there is clearly a benefit to a cancer drugs fund (not necessarily an optimal one, though I never suggested that), and the way England has been able to pay for it has been through modest prescription charges for those not exempt by reason of age or means or the nature of their illness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't and has never been about need: it's about ideological adherence to making sure nobody gets Something For Nothing first, and taking a kick at the Nats second.

Free prescriptions have been an (almost) unqualified success, so of course they need to be replaced.

Could you provide some evidence that free prescriptions have been an "unqualified success" and define your terms of success please? I'm not saying it hasn't or that it needs replaced, and if you bothered to read my posts you would realise that. I've simply said we need more evidence to assess whether there are better alternatives and that this should be under constant review.

Forget HS2, how about the money that the British Government has blown on their new universal credit scheme? Designed to solve a problem that doesn't exist on any real scale (the disgusting poors who choose to stay on benefits rather than work), and make sure that poor people have a worse life.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23971068 So it was designed to solve a problem that didn't exist (or that was their reasoning), it can't do what it is allegedly supposed to do, it isn't working, its costing loads, and millions have been blown on nothing. On the good side, it is ideologically pure.But free prescriptions are the real waste here! Get them cut!http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23963867

I don't support Universal Credit as implemented by the DWP. I'm not sure why you think I do. I've hardly passed any comment on it at all.

Learn to write and express yourself clearly, and then people might respond to what you write, rather than what you say.

I do write and express myself clearly. It's not my fault if Swampy chooses to ignore the throbbing big caveats in my post that actually state the opposite of what he accuses me of arguing.

Oh good. That means we can just cut the ties to Westminster vanity projects, pocket the cash, share a little with NHS Scotland while keeping free prescriptions, and kick your ideological posturing into the dustbin of Scottish politics, alongside your party.

Thanks for playing anyway.

I have absolutely no objections to cutting ties with Westminster and using money saved from, among other things, not contributing to Trident or HS2, to fund public services where we think the money will do the most good. My objection from the outset was the *assumption* and ideological standpoint that universal benefits are *always* better. Because they aren't always better and they aren't inherently more moral. Their virtue exists on a case-by-case basis and we have to make a judgment about the trade-offs that creating a universal service has against all of the alternatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just gonna leave that there in isolation, for those claiming that our resident busted flush is making serious arguments rather than waffling and posturing.

Please feel free to quote the post where I said we needed a cancer drugs fund.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say we should have a cancer drugs fund.

All I said was that (means tested) prescription charges can give you greater budgetary flexibility to increase the number of drugs for which the NHS provides prescription subsidy, and that when there is a demonstrable need for that wider range of drugs, such charges ought not to be ruled out on ideological grounds as part of the solution. I was not saying that Scotland should ape England, Dallas or Timbuktu. If Scotland feels it doesn't need a cancer drugs fund, that's absolutely fine. But there is clearly a benefit to a cancer drugs fund (not necessarily an optimal one, though I never suggested that), and the way England has been able to pay for it has been through modest prescription charges for those not exempt by reason of age or means or the nature of their illness.

Means-tested access to roads and schools would give 'greater budgetary flexibility', too, with the added cost/benefit (delete as applicable: normal people will choose the former) of a bloated bureaucracy and many people falling through the system's cracks. It is with good reason that universality is the watchword here: it's because it actually works. Then again it leaves parasitic lawyers playing with their scrotums on the sidelines so obviously it needs to be opposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why on earth did you bring it up in the first place?

Because evidence was requested for benefits of prescription charges, and they have been used to increase the amount of the health budget that can be allocated towards drugs in England, which has allowed them to have a broader range of cancer drugs available on the NHS. Certain cancer drugs that would not be as readily available to people in Scotland with the same need. That is one example of an advantage the extra revenue stream of prescription charges can bring, even allowing for the cost of an administrative scheme to exempt certain people from having to pay it.

In each individual case, we should be assessing the benefit of using a new revenue stream to pay for extra drugs and make a judgment about whether that outweighs the administrative benefits of a universal scheme with less money set aside for those additional types of medication. We should not simply *assume* or decide at the outset that prescription charges shouldn't be part of the mix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And an 'assessment' was indeed made. Xbl posted about it. So... that thing you weren't advocating, it's been looked into and nobody else (including single-issue groups such as cancer charities) seems particularly convinced of a need for it.

I mean, obviously you weren't cheerleading for it or anything, so you'll be completely apathetic to this news. But if someone hypothetically was JAQ'ing off about it in some attempt to prove how cavalier the Scottish government was in its approach to the availability of cancer drugs, they'd currently be left with four clubs on the turn, and a spade about to land on the river.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...