Independence - how would you vote?

[Ad Lib]

Yep, what's needed now is implementing the same procedure for doctors' appointments, hospital visits etc: after all, so long as the plebs get a certificate option and selected groups a free ride, who would rightfully complain?

That would be the same slippery slope to part-privatised clusterfuck well underway in England. Good job everyone!

That slope is so slippery that other countries charge for GP appointments and have excellent overall health outcomes. Perhaps you can go and tell our Swedish friends that they're not universal enough.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

Yep, what's needed now is implementing the same procedure for doctors' appointments, hospital visits etc: after all, so long as the plebs get a certificate option and selected groups a free ride, who would rightfully complain?

That would be the same slippery slope to part-privatised clusterfuck well underway in England. Good job everyone!

Why is any of that relevant?

[Ad Lib]

1/Justify what? NHS England has a comittee that decides whether a drug is effective enough to buy, so does Scotland.

2/ It's not up to me to provide evidence for the statements you make. You know the drill.

1. Justify why it's "bang for your buck" and not "bang for the buck". It was you that brought it up. I am perfectly aware of the way that it is decided whether drugs will be funded by the NHS north and south of the border. What I have provided you evidence of is the flexibility that additional revenue streams such as prescription charges provide to those that want more discretion and the ability to go beyond the basic provision determined by those same said commitees.

2. I've provided you with the evidence and directed you to the source. I'm not sure what more you want from me to be honest.

[vikingTON]

That slope is so slippery that other countries charge for GP appointments and have excellent overall health outcomes. Perhaps you can go and tell our Swedish friends that they're not universal enough.

Not sure why you're comparing the Scottish NHS to Sweden when we have a much more useful frame of relevance south of the border. One that will comprehensively fail to bring universality, quality of care or value for money to anyone in the system.

[Baxter Parp]

1. Justify why it's "bang for your buck" and not "bang for the buck". It was you that brought it up. I am perfectly aware of the way that it is decided whether drugs will be funded by the NHS north and south of the border. What I have provided you evidence of is the flexibility that additional revenue streams such as prescription charges provide to those that want more discretion and the ability to go beyond the basic provision determined by those same said commitees.

2. I've provided you with the evidence and directed you to the source. I'm not sure what more you want from me to be honest.

1/I don't know what you're on about now, both those statements mean the same thing.

2/You've shown that it's different, not that it's better. Your opinion is not evidence.

[Ad Lib]

1/I don't know what you're on about now, both those statements mean the same thing.

2/You've shown that it's different, not that it's better. Your opinion is not evidence.

I've shown that England is able to cover cancer drugs that Scotland doesn't because of the aggregate of its policy positions in respect of prescriptions and the way funding and cost are allocated. It doesn't take nuclear physics to demonstrate that a broader range of drugs being available is a positive advantage over a more restrictive range and less flexibility in the balance between all subsidy and none.

[Enigma]

It might do. that's one of the trade-offs. I've already mentioned it. The policy of rationing to present a universal service also leads to this outcome though. People that should be taking certain drugs won't be taking them because they're not on the NHS Scotland approved list, there isn't the money there by way of a discretionary fund to acquire them for that specific set of circumstances, and the drugs are unaffordable because they're not even being subsidised to any extent by the state.

Sorry, I hope you'll excuse me for skim reading through some of your posts.

For me, personally, that trade off, that people who should be taking drugs might not, makes universally free prescriptions worthwhile. The other end of the spectrum is the better access to some drugs in England, as you also previously mentioned, but I believe that more people benefit from free prescriptions than are disadvantaged by it. My mother has 6 prescriptions, we are by no means of humble means, but they would cost a bloody fortune if they weren't free. I would be very upset if I had to pay a significant amount of my disposable income on drugs because I had the misfortune to develop a condition which required a prescription not on the list.

[Baxter Parp]

I've shown that England is able to cover cancer drugs that Scotland doesn't

No you haven't, Libby.

[Enigma]

In Sweden you are charged £20 to see a doctor.

I think that's a pretty nasty policy. Do you advocate it's implementation here?

[vikingTON]

It's also interesting to note the budget priorities that come with being within the CDU:

High-priority - 'defence' ie sending cruise missiles and warships to pointlessly attack Syria, a country thousands of miles away, a measure backed by parody figures like Ad Lib.

Low-priority - 'health' ie provision of drugs free of charge to citizens under a universal care system, in a developed country, in the 21st Century. A measure opposed by parody figures like Ad Lib, due to the issue of "finite funds" and his latest fly-by-night ideological posturing.

Now... can any bright spark figure out how an independent Scotland could afford a high standard of health care, delivered to everyone free of charge, within its existing revenue/"finite funds"?

Hint: refer to the monstrous budget of the above "High-priority" answer.

[Enigma]

It's also interesting to note the budget priorities that come with being within the CDU:

High-priority - 'defence' ie sending cruise missiles and warships to pointlessly attack Syria, a country thousands of miles away, a measure backed by parody figures like Ad Lib.

Low-priority - 'health' ie provision of drugs free of charge to citizens under a universal care system, in a developed country, in the 21st Century. A measure opposed by parody figures like Ad Lib, due to the issue of "finite funds" and his latest fly-by-night ideological posturing.

Now... can any bright spark figure out how an independent Scotland could afford a high standard of health care, delivered to everyone free of charge, within its existing revenue/"finite funds"?

Hint: refer to the monstrous budget of the above "High-priority" answer.

Great post. Even our resident faeces flingers could work that one out.

What is more high-priority that one's own health?

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

If you want free prescriptions as an ideological stance then fair enough, but I still haven't seen anyone come up with a reason why the English system is objectively bad?

[speckled tangerine]

I think that's a pretty nasty policy. Do you advocate it's implementation here?

It's sixty euro to see the doctor in Ireland. Hundred euro if you need an ambulance to come out. Prescriptions are expensive. And that's the public system paid for out of general taxation. If you want to be seen a bit quicker you can pay vhi (voluntary health insurance) over and above that.

[Baxter Parp]

If you want free prescriptions as an ideological stance then fair enough, but I still haven't seen anyone come up with a reason why the English system is objectively bad?

Do you fancy getting a couple of prescriptions on a minimum wage?

[~~~]

I do enjoy how unionists will won't say independence. because they know deep down you can't argue against a nation becoming independent.

Recent example

Of course they have nothing to back up that graphic, literally they just stuck it up on the Facebook page without anything

[speckled tangerine]

It's also interesting to note the budget priorities that come with being within the CDU:

High-priority - 'defence' ie sending cruise missiles and warships to pointlessly attack Syria, a country thousands of miles away, a measure backed by parody figures like Ad Lib.

Low-priority - 'health' ie provision of drugs free of charge to citizens under a universal care system, in a developed country, in the 21st Century. A measure opposed by parody figures like Ad Lib, due to the issue of "finite funds" and his latest fly-by-night ideological posturing.

Now... can any bright spark figure out how an independent Scotland could afford a high standard of health care, delivered to everyone free of charge, within its existing revenue/"finite funds"?

Hint: refer to the monstrous budget of the above "High-priority" answer.

Don't forget the new aircraft carriers (5.5 billion last estimate per ship), that'll be lying sunk at the bottom of the sea owing to having no aircraft (cost for these aircraft tbc later) and reputedly, no radar cover.

[Ad Lib]

Sorry, I hope you'll excuse me for skim reading through some of your posts.

For me, personally, that trade off, that people who should be taking drugs might not, makes universally free prescriptions worthwhile. The other end of the spectrum is the better access to some drugs in England, as you also previously mentioned, but I believe that more people benefit from free prescriptions than are disadvantaged by it. My mother has 6 prescriptions, we are by no means of humble means, but they would cost a bloody fortune if they weren't free. I would be very upset if I had to pay a significant amount of my disposable income on drugs because I had the misfortune to develop a condition which required a prescription not on the list.

What are you on about, Enigma? This happens *already* in Scotland! If NHS Scotland does not fully fund the prescription drug you need it doesn't fund it at all! Meaning in the case of things like certain cancer drugs, you have to "pay a significant amount of your disposable income on drugs because you had the misfortune to develop a condition which required a prescription not on the list".

The English system is more nuanced. It says that certain classes of people: children, the elderly, those on income support and those suffering from certain long-term conditions, are exempt from prescription charges, but that everyone else has the choice between a modest one-off charge or a single charge of £30 for a 3 month period for those requiring more. Now is £120 a year significant for those on low incomes not protected by income support? Sure. But that's an argument for broadening the exemption, not against the principle of the charge or the practice of any charge.

I think that's a pretty nasty policy. Do you advocate it's implementation here?

I'd be interested to see the evidence. There could be a case for allowing doctor's surgeries to charge for GP appointments in certain circumstances. Short notice cancellations/no shows might be one area particularly suitable for this. I certainly don't think it's a "nasty" policy in the slightest. It's common practice for lots of countries seen as progressive and economically and socially advanced. Do you think that the £10 I was charged by my chiropodist every time I went to have my ingrown toenail treated was "nasty"? What about psychiatrists? Are they "nasty"? What about the charge that my NHS dentist levied for the updated x-ray of my teeth she took as part of my last check-up? Was that "nasty"? Is it "nasty" to charge for over-the-counter medicines, even if they're "necessary" to relieve pain? What are your criteria here?

It's also interesting to note the budget priorities that come with being within the CDU:

High-priority - 'defence' ie sending cruise missiles and warships to pointlessly attack Syria, a country thousands of miles away, a measure backed by parody figures like Ad Lib.

Low-priority - 'health' ie provision of drugs free of charge to citizens under a universal care system, in a developed country, in the 21st Century. A measure opposed by parody figures like Ad Lib, due to the issue of "finite funds" and his latest fly-by-night ideological posturing.

Now... can any bright spark figure out how an independent Scotland could afford a high standard of health care, delivered to everyone free of charge, within its existing revenue/"finite funds"?

Hint: refer to the monstrous budget of the above "High-priority" answer.

I don't disagree with you that we can cut the defence budget. I do, however, think that right here right now removing the Assad regime which has used chemical weapons against its own people is more important than universal healthcare free at every point of use in the UK.

[xbl]

You know, if the English way is so great and wonderful for things like tuition fees and prescriptions, why do we get so much English muttering about freebies and subsidies?

I honestly struggle to think of three things that Ad Lib thinks we do better in Scotland than down south.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

Do you fancy getting a couple of prescriptions on a minimum wage?

I wouldn't fancy trying to live on the minimum wage at all. But if you're on a low income there's a decent chance you're entitled to help with prescription costs.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

You know, if the English way is so great and wonderful for things like tuition fees and prescriptions, why do we get so much English muttering about freebies and subsidies?

I honestly struggle to think of three things that Ad Lib thinks we do better in Scotland than down south.

Because people often don't know what they're talking about. In the same way that lots of English people are under the impression that an independent Scotland would go bankrupt, or that people on here seemed to think that the UK government is spending £16 billion on Crossrail.