Independence - how would you vote?

[Swampy]

The lesser-spotted 'neutral observer' at this point can decide for themselves if you're suffering the dread injustice of being misinterpreted, or if you've been caught out advocating dodgy policy and backpedalling on it, by the way.

[Ad Lib]

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.

I've not said that it doesn't actually work in any of the specific cases that you describe. I've simply said it may be the case that means testing certain aspects of certain things in certain circumstances may bring certain benefits which outweigh the non-bureaucratic simplicity of a universal service. This is precisely the "ideological" position YOU adopted at the outset. All I'm asking is that we actually ingather evidence in relation to these benefits and their equivalents in other countries, keep that evidence under constant review, and change the policy whenever there is a compelling cost-benefit reason for doing so. You seem to be of the view that we shouldn't keep this evidence under review.

[Ad Lib]

The lesser-spotted 'neutral observer' at this point can decide for themselves if you're suffering the dread injustice of being misinterpreted, or if you've been caught out advocating dodgy policy and backpedalling on it, by the way.

Quote a single post of mine stating that we should have a cancer drugs fund in Scotland. Do it. Or shut the f**k up.

[Swampy]

I've not said that it doesn't actually work in any of the specific cases that you describe. I've simply said it may be the case that means testing certain aspects of certain things in certain circumstances may bring certain benefits which outweigh the non-bureaucratic simplicity of a universal service. This is precisely the "ideological" position YOU adopted at the outset. All I'm asking is that we actually ingather evidence in relation to these benefits and their equivalents in other countries, keep that evidence under constant review, and change the policy whenever there is a compelling cost-benefit reason for doing so. You seem to be of the view that we shouldn't keep this evidence under review.

Such as in the example xbl gave, when even cancer charities looked at the exact situation you described and said 'lol nah'.

[Swampy]

Quote a single post of mine stating that we should have a cancer drugs fund in Scotland. Do it. Or shut the f**k up.

Nah, I'm alright. I took this, and still take this, as a tear-drenched, Mr. Smith Goes To Washingtonian appeal to the supremacy of Englandandwales' exemplary cancer fund:

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

This was preceded by:

"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!"

I'm perfectly happy with my interpretation of what you said, and I think you're backtracking on it because Xbl demonstrated that the exact situation you describe was given a bodyswerve even by cancer charities (because it's a shit system.)

[Ad Lib]

Such as in the example xbl gave, when even cancer charities looked at the exact situation you described and said 'lol nah'.

Perhaps you can post a single post of mine that says that we should have a Cancer Drugs fund? Oh wait. You can't. Because I didn't say it.

Nah, I'm alright. I took this, and still take this, as a tear-drenched, Mr. Smith Goes To Washingtonian appeal to the supremacy of Englandandwales' exemplary cancer fund:

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

This was preceded by:

"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!"

I'm perfectly happy with my interpretation of what you said, and I think you're backtracking on it because Xbl demonstrated that the exact situation you describe was given a bodyswerve even by cancer charities (because it's a shit system.)

Look I really don't see what's difficult to grasp here. The Cancer Drugs fund is demonstrably "a benefit" over and above no cancer drugs fund. More cancer drugs is better than less cancer drugs. What has happened is that the Scottish Government's assessment panel has reached a different conclusion on the merits of that as set against the benefits of a simplified universal system that pays or people who don't need prescriptions paid for. Both decisions are legitimate. I have no particular quibble with either decision.

All I have said, and all I will continue to say, is that that calculation should always be undertaken rather than its result assumed always to favour universal benefits. You seem to be of the view that we shouldn't bother and should just assume that universalism is always better because, erm, your friend in Dallas is having a problem with one specific means tested drug programme in a budgetary and regulatory environment completely alien to the way healthcare is or has ever been structured in any part of the United Kingdom and because you know a few people who have saved a three figure sum on their annual medication outlays as a result of total abolition of prescription charges for their NHS approved drugs.

If you'd cared to read my nuanced position on this with any care whatsoever, you would have seen this was the position I adopted from the start. But no. You either failed to read my posts or just decided ab initio that because I said universalism might not always be the optimal answer that I was therefore in favour of withdrawing state support for drugs to those who need that support.

[Swampy]

The Cancer Drugs fund is demonstrably "a benefit" over and above no cancer drugs fund.

[citation needed]

[Swampy]

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.

1: "The Cancer Drugs fund is demonstrably "a benefit" over and above no cancer drugs fund." Ad Lib http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/198881-independence-how-would-you-vote/page-738#entry7693067

2: "For the umpeenth time, I haven't said we should do this. Learn to read my actual posts. " Ad Lib http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/198881-independence-how-would-you-vote/page-738#entry7692834

3.1: "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. " Ad Lib http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/198881-independence-how-would-you-vote/page-738#entry7692970

3.2: "I've simply said we need more evidence to assess whether there are better alternatives and that this should be under constant review." Ad Lib http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/198881-independence-how-would-you-vote/page-738#entry7692925

4: "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." Scotsman http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/198881-independence-how-would-you-vote/page-737#entry7692713%C2'>

[Swampy]

Still, the important thing is that free prescriptions have taken a several pages-long kicking. Doubtless the intention from the beginning.

Assuming any neutrals still bother to read this morass, voting No will bring you a lot more nonsense like this over the coming years.

[Ad Lib]

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.

1: "The Cancer Drugs fund is demonstrably "a benefit" over and above no cancer drugs fund." Ad Lib http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/198881-independence-how-would-you-vote/page-738#entry7693067

2: "For the umpeenth time, I haven't said we should do this. Learn to read my actual posts. " Ad Lib http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/198881-independence-how-would-you-vote/page-738#entry7692834

3.1: "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. " Ad Lib http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/198881-independence-how-would-you-vote/page-738#entry7692970

3.2: "I've simply said we need more evidence to assess whether there are better alternatives and that this should be under constant review." Ad Lib http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/198881-independence-how-would-you-vote/page-738#entry7692925

4: "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." Scotsman

Do you accept or deny that the 18500 or so patients in receipt of cancer drugs fund assistance are better off because of the availability of those drugs than they would otherwise have been? Yes or no? Does that constitute "a benefit" and is that treatment better than no treatment at all? Yes or no?

Do you understand the difference between "a benefit" "a net benefit" and "the most beneficial"?

I believe that more cancer drugs is better than less cancer drugs but I pass no judgment over whether the costs connected to it and means tested prescription charges outweigh it. I simply observe that England's NHS adopted one position on this matter while Scotland's adopted another. I have no objection to either determination.

[Swampy]

So you don't want to implement it?

[Ad Lib]

So you don't want to implement it?

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

[Swampy]

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

OK. Let's do that, then. Problem solved! Looks like Scotland can keep free prescriptions after all. Phew. Dodged a bullet there. As you were, everyone.

[Ad Lib]

OK. Let's do that, then. Problem solved! Looks like Scotland can keep free prescriptions after all. Phew. Dodged a bullet there. As you were, everyone.

I haven't got a problem with that. I have absolutely no idea what makes you think I do, when nothing in any of my posts suggests otherwise. My objection is to having universal benefits "on principle" rather than because they've been concluded to be the most cost and service efficient.

[Swampy]

I haven't got a problem with that. I have absolutely no idea what makes you think I do, when nothing in any of my posts suggests otherwise. My objection is to having universal benefits "on principle" rather than because they've been concluded to be the most cost and service efficient.

Pictured - Ad Lib, not having a problem with free prescriptions:

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!

[Swampy]

I'm going out now, and in any case I think I've made my point. You have had an absolute nightmare here, championing a policy nobody wants, in some kind of attempt to prove that you're not attached in some way to this kind of policy...

... which is what I said around 16 hours ago now, to much protest.

[Ad Lib]

Pictured - Ad Lib, not having a problem with free prescriptions:

My objection to that post was not his support of free prescriptions, but his argument that t's necessarily wrong to have a tick box for those of low means to be exempted from it, irrespective of the other potentially significant benefits of such a scheme.

[Jambomo]

Still, the important thing is that free prescriptions have taken a several pages-long kicking. Doubtless the intention from the beginning.

Assuming any neutrals still bother to read this morass, voting No will bring you a lot more nonsense like this over the coming years.

Reading Hegel in 4th year Philosophy was less taxing than reading one of Ad Libs posts and that's when translated into English (I'm assured he's just as bad in the original German, Hegel not Ad Lib).

One of the problems facing us when talking about means testing for almost anything, is that it is presented as a means of removing inequality and bringing fairness to a system.

In fact I'd argue it does the opposite, it creates inequality in the opposite direction - helping the poor at the expense of the rich. Now yes, probably they can afford it but it is still not a 'fair' position, the majority (with the exception of some perhaps) have made their money fairly through work and should not be punished for this.

If we think that as a nation a policy or benefit is worthwhile for people and should be available then it should be there for everyone - when they need it and not after filling out 100 page forms and waiting 6 months for a decision.

[Ad Lib]

I'm going out now, and in any case I think I've made my point. You have had an absolute nightmare here, championing a policy nobody wants, in some kind of attempt to prove that you're not attached in some way to this kind of policy...

... which is what I said around 16 hours ago now, to much protest.

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

[Ad Lib]

Reading Hegel in 4th year Philosophy was less taxing than reading one of Ad Libs posts and that's when translated into English (I'm assured he's just as bad in the original German, Hegel not Ad Lib).

One of the problems facing us when talking about means testing for almost anything, is that it is presented as a means of removing inequality and bringing fairness to a system.

In fact I'd argue it does the opposite, it creates inequality in the opposite direction - helping the poor at the expense of the rich. Now yes, probably they can afford it but it is still not a 'fair' position, the majority (with the exception of some perhaps) have made their money fairly through work and should not be punished for this.

If we think that as a nation a policy or benefit is worthwhile for people and should be available then it should be there for everyone - when they need it and not after filling out 100 page forms and waiting 6 months for a decision.

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.