Independence - how would you vote?

[Baxter Parp]

Putting your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalala not listening" doesn't alter the reality that I provided you with evidence of the broader range of drugs available through the NHS in England in relation to cancer treatment than is available in Scotland.

Your statements aren't evidence, Libby. No matter how much you want to avoid it, at some point you're going to have to provide some link or at least some facts accumulated by a neutral party.

And no, I'm not going to do your searching for you.

[Davi3j]

You've forgotten the personal allowance. The 40p rate of tax kicks in for those earning in the region of £41k if my memory serves. You'll recall of course that such a figure represents approximately twice the median wage for this country.

Which is slightly besides the point as I wasn't advocating those being the thresholds. I said that we could horsetrade on that, to account for whatever specific boundaries we want to draw. I merely suggested that the overwhelming majority of people in those categories can afford to make a contribution towards their own prescription costs, so they should, if it would save the NHS money that could be spent on other more useful things.

my point being that it would take more than "horse trading", you cant have a fare system that give to some but not to others without a proper means testing system, which is just going to be way to expensive to implement (just look at Ian Duncan Smiths pet project)....oh, and who pays for it? yep the taxpayer, including those who would qualify for 'free' prescriptions,

[Baxter Parp]

You do realise that the proportion of the UK population with PHI is something like 10-12%, right? And that when their doctor, NHS or private, writes them a prescription, it's the pharmecist that gets paid by the government, not the doctor, right? People with PHI take advantage of state funded prescriptions in the same way as they take advantage of A&E even though they carry a BUPA membership card.

Excellent, you'll be able to provide evidence for all these facts, right?

[Baxter Parp]

I don't cater for the lowest common denominator. Speaking to you is like trying to communicate gravity to someone living in a two-dimensional universe.

..and if you cannot communicate, you're a waste of space. I skim your posts because I know that there is a pile of shite in every one that isn't worth reading, since it's only there to make yourself look intelligent. (hint: you're not).

[Ad Lib]

Excellent, you'll be able to provide evidence for all these facts, right?

Proportion of UK with Private Health Insurance in 2009 was around 11%: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8201711.stm and a recent estimate from earlier this year puts it at 10.8%: http://www.economicvoice.com/private-medical-cover-solid-demand-gives-chink-of-light/50038459

Pharmecists get paid by the government through an NHS tariff system. To see how it works in Scotland: http://www.isdscotlandarchive.scot.nhs.uk/isd/2245.html

[Assasinach]

what will happen to the Better Togethers in the event of a Yes vote and their best mates start treating them like the dodgy cousin of a north Korean visitor all of a sudden.

[10 CC ICT]

After the clusterfuck Mr Lib got himself into over prescriptions, I'd like to point out that there's no such thing as a free prescription. They are all paid for through our taxes and to stigmatise those in society who are less fortunate by having them tick boxes on a form every time they need one is just wrong imo. He quotes a figure of £500000 net worth and 40% tax for qualification for payment, but how many people would that involve and how much more would it cost to administer than having the universal system?

[Baxter Parp]

Proportion of UK with Private Health Insurance in 2009 was around 11%: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8201711.stm and a recent estimate from earlier this year puts it at 10.8%: http://www.economicvoice.com/private-medical-cover-solid-demand-gives-chink-of-light/50038459

Pharmecists get paid by the government through an NHS tariff system. To see how it works in Scotland: http://www.isdscotlandarchive.scot.nhs.uk/isd/2245.html

And your conclusion based on this evidence is?

[Baxter Parp]

After the clusterfuck Mr Lib got himself into over prescriptions, I'd like to point out that there's no such thing as a free prescription.

Too true, you either pay through taxes or you pay directly. The likes of Ad Lib would prefer that the poor pay cash rather than the rich pay via taxes.

[H_B]

 A No vote will be a yes vote for the least democratic n oldest system going.

 

snot the worst vote anyone who's never voted for Thatcher has done.

 

we will find you and deal with you

Civil unrest!!

The rivers will run slightly pinkish.

[Reynard]

A No vote will be a yes vote for the least democratic n oldest system going.

snot the worst vote anyone who's never voted for Thatcher has done.

we will find you and deal with you

[Reynard]

Good to see that the nationalists favourite polling company has decided to attempt to regain some of the credibility, after the stupid f**k nationalists stuffed their membership to finally get a pollster that showed them with any sort of a chance, by not counting new members who signed up en masse after June. The problem is that everyone (and Panelbase) know their outfit has been rigged long before this. They have a serious credibility problem thanks the to stupidity of the nat clown collective who actually thought they were being cunning and politicially smart here.

What a shower of utter cocksockets.

[xbl]

And speaking of credibility, how about those pension figures?

Incidentally, there is a reason reynard hasn't posted a link or quoted the source.

[AberdeenBud]

64,000 jobs at risk.

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/independence-risk-to-64000-jobs-warns-city-report-135626n.22068771

[xbl]

Incidentally, barry used this line a while back too...is this the new unionist line? "Its another cybernat conspiracy!!!"

[Mr Rational]

64,000 jobs at risk.

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/independence-risk-to-64000-jobs-warns-city-report-135626n.22068771

Would that make the weeg 100% unemployed then?

[Ad Lib]

And your conclusion based on this evidence is?

That it does not follow that those over those thresholds will have private health insurance and that even where they do, they will still, in the overwhelming if not essentially all cases be getting prescriptions fully funded on the NHS and not through their insurance provider, contrary to your assertion.

[Ad Lib]

After the clusterfuck Mr Lib got himself into over prescriptions, I'd like to point out that there's no such thing as a free prescription. They are all paid for through our taxes and to stigmatise those in society who are less fortunate by having them tick boxes on a form every time they need one is just wrong imo. He quotes a figure of £500000 net worth and 40% tax for qualification for payment, but how many people would that involve and how much more would it cost to administer than having the universal system?

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.

Too true, you either pay through taxes or you pay directly. The likes of Ad Lib would prefer that the poor pay cash rather than the rich pay via taxes.

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

[xbl]

It's almost as though people didn't read my posts or something.

Now I'd have sympathy for you, but when you posted the same thing last night:

People should really learn to read my posts instead of responding based on things completely unrelated to them and points not argued by me.

And it was pointed out that your current writing style is dull, hard to read, and reads like a bad research paper. This was your comment:

The points are readily communicated.

1. Your loss.

2. All posts should read like research papers. It weeds out the forum's lesser beings.

If you don't care about communicating your ideas, then you have no right to whinge about your ideas not being communicated.

[Ad Lib]

Now I'd have sympathy for you, but when you posted the same thing last night: And it was pointed out that your current writing style is dull, hard to read, and reads like a bad research paper. This was your comment: If you don't care about communicating your ideas, then you have no right to whinge about your ideas not being communicated.

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