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

I have not championed a single policy on the question of prescription medication. Unlucky.

I have no idea as to the point you are trying to make then.

All day.

At length.

Just imagine what you could achieve if you put all this effort into something you actually were passionate about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I have no idea as to the point you are trying to make then.

All day.

At length.

Just imagine what you could achieve if you put all this effort into something you actually were passionate about.

I am passionate about making trivial points all day at length. Why aren't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure whether we should respect the length of Ad Lib's "clown running across a minefield" performance today, or recommend taking inspiration from of H_B's tried and tested, multi-volume disappearing/forgetful memory trick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look forward to seeing your proposals for making housing benefit universal and paid at a flat rate, so we don't "punish" the precious occupants of million pound homes in Morningside. Out of "fairness", you see.

Well I think similarly to prescriptions you would have to establish a basic need.

If you need a prescription then that is established by going to the doctor and having them assess you.

I would say that it would be fair enough in this case, since finance and affordability would be the need in question here, to have to show you have some kind of need for state assistance.

I suspect that those in million pound houses in Morningside may not be able, or indeed motivated, towards doing that. Though Morningside seems to be more students and private lets than millionaires these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I think similarly to prescriptions you would have to establish a basic need.

If you need a prescription then that is established by going to the doctor and having them assess you.

I would say that it would be fair enough in this case, since finance and affordability would be the need in question here, to have to show you have some kind of need for state assistance.

I suspect that those in million pound houses in Morningside may not be able, or indeed motivated, towards doing that. Though Morningside seems to be more students and private lets than millionaires these days.

Why is finance and affordability the need in the case of housing benefit (rather than say, "shelter") but in the case of prescriptions the need is not finance and affordability but "relevant illness"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is finance and affordability the need in the case of housing benefit (rather than say, "shelter") but in the case of prescriptions the need is not finance and affordability but "relevant illness"?

Because when you go to the doctor, you go there with concerns in your health.

If you apply for housing benefit it is because of concerns in being able to afford to obtain a home or keep your home. Housing or most forms of shelter (I am not including hostels and the like as they are temporary or emergency form of accommodation) is inextricably linked with finance and affordability in a way that health is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because when you go to the doctor, you go there with concerns in your health.

If you apply for housing benefit it is because of concerns in being able to afford to obtain a home or keep your home. Housing or most forms of shelter (I am not including hostels and the like as they are temporary or emergency form of accommodation) is inextricably linked with finance and affordability in a way that health is not.

Health is clearly linked to finance and affordability. It's not the doctor's assessment that the thing being charged for with a prescription. It's the supply of (typically controlled) substances from a pharmacist at the pharmacist's expense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Health is clearly linked to finance and affordability. It's not the doctor's assessment that the thing being charged for with a prescription. It's the supply of (typically controlled) substances from a pharmacist at the pharmacist's expense.

Of course Health has some concerns in finance and affordability but in this case, which is the point we are discussing, not for the person who is in need of the drugs. It is the concern of the local health authority.

When someone goes to the doctor they are saying - I want something to make me better. The doctor decides what they need and they get it. Cost, earnings etc at that point is not under consideration.

When someone applies for housing benefit they are essentially asking directly for money and financial help. In this case establishing a need through looking at finances is fair enough - we can't escape completely from means testing or something akin to it, it should not become some kind of default position and should be avoided when it isn't essential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course Health has some concerns in finance and affordability but in this case, which is the point we are discussing, not for the person who is in need of the drugs. It is the concern of the local health authority.

When someone goes to the doctor they are saying - I want something to make me better. The doctor decides what they need and they get it. Cost, earnings etc at that point is not under consideration.

When someone applies for housing benefit they are essentially asking directly for money and financial help. In this case establishing a need through looking at finances is fair enough - we can't escape completely from means testing or something akin to it, it should not become some kind of default position and should be avoided when it isn't essential.

Going to the doctor and getting a prescription are different things. A pharmacist gives you prescribed medicine. A doctor merely authorises a pharmacist to prepare it for you (because most medications are controlled substances) in a suitable amount and form. When you have been recommended to take a course of medication by your doctor, and they give you a prescription note, your next important relationship is with the pharmacy, which in the comparison with housing benefit is like any of a range of prospective landlords with properties to let. Cost absolutely is a consideration for pharmacists just as rent absolutely is a consideration for a landlord. Support from the state is, in both cases, based on a "need" according to you. Why isn't the financial "need" for pharmaceuticals support, in principle, the same as the financial "need" for rent support.

The point being that we need a clearer definition of what constitutes "essential".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we still violently unanimous that we don't need/want a cancer drugs fund? Alright, nice one.


The internet's being fixed at my house right now so I'm in a nearby cafe. There's a guy two tables away on his laptop with huge headphones on, and he looks like he's working on something important coz there's a binder in front of him as well and he's periodically writing something in it with much alacrity.


Anyway, around two minutes ago he let rip a total beezer of a fart. This is a narrow bit of the coffee shop so I couldn't help but see it was him out of the corner of my eye (he adjusted his position to let it out.) Because he's wearing these massive headphones he misjudged it hugely and presumably thought it was a silent one, but I do think he's recognized his mistake because the women across from him both glanced over, and now he's looking really stern and serious and working harder than he was.


Anyway, this reminded me very much of Reynard's input to the thread over the last couple of weeks. Basically we all heard him fart out pension and immigration figures but he's doggedly continuing as if nothing has happened.


Vote Yes next September.


Yours aye,


Swampy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to get this 100% clear... a 'Cancer Drugs fund' is superior to no 'Cancer Drugs fund.' (1)

But you don't want a 'Cancer Drugs fund'. (2)

You want there to be an ongoing evaluation of the possible benefits of a 'Cancer Drugs fund', (3.1, 3.2) even though you've already said a 'Cancer Drugs fund' is better. (1) And you also don't want a 'Cancer Drugs' fund to be implemented in Scotland? (2)

So we're to have an ongoing analysis of something that is simultaneously better, but not something you actually want to implement? (1-4) Or something experts in the field and charity stakeholders want to be implemented either? (4)

This is why people can't follow your arguments. It's because they're not actually arguments. They are scatter-gun declarative sentences buried in paragraph after paragraph of completely irrelevant detail.

Thank god someone put this together, I was beginning to wonder if it was just me! But this is the point where my head exploded:

I neither want to implement it nor don't want to implement it.

"What do we want??"

"Well actually, we neither want not do not want it"

"...when do we want it?"

"After thorough means testing!"

VT referred to a clown running across a minefield. I think thats very unfair on both clowns and fields.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As hugely entertaining as the minefield clown has been, real shit has happened it seems. Bill Walker has resigned, so it could be a chance for the Unionists to give the SNP a kicking, especially given how unpopular the "Spectacular own goal" Scottish Government is, right?

A Lib Dem MP is so disgusted at the actions of the Lib Dem that she's going to stay in the Lib Dems for two more years...but best of all, has anyone heard David Cameron defending Britain?

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

I quote:

"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.

All very stirring stuff, but how does it end? He doesn't get stupid and insensitive does he?

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."

Oh, thats alright. Wait, there's more?

"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.

This England eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He must be quoting something. No idea what, but even Cameron couldn't be daft enough to drop the E-bomb just after qualifying that NI, Shetland and Orkney are just as much a part of Britain.

I agree with the original remark. The days of Britain being a power are long gone. Only at the top table due to the sufferance of the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He must be quoting something. No idea what, but even Cameron couldn't be daft enough to drop the E-bomb just after qualifying that NI, Shetland and Orkney are just as much a part of Britain.

I agree with the original remark. The days of Britain being a power are long gone. Only at the top table due to the sufferance of the rest.

Yeah, he's quoting Shakespeare. It's a pretty famous quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get this excuse that people 'need' to know more. It really only comes down to whether you believe the decisions about Scotland should be taken by the people living in Scotland. If you don't then it's up to you to tell us why and articulate what "Better Together" means.

People will try and justify it by asking impossible questions of the Yes campaign about the future but won't ask have the slightest idea of what Westminster's intentions are. The "too many unanswered questions" excuse just doesn't hold.

Agree that the polls are largely meaningless though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can take polls with a "pinch of salt" and each side will always put their own "spin" on them as is their want, but I do think if the "yes" campaign will do well to get 40% in the referendum vote anyway

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...