Tryfield Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 I thought they had a fixed budget. A fixed budget that would rise, obviously, if they stopped the freebies to the well off and re-direct the funds collected from eye tests, dental check-ups, prescriptions etc to the less well off. Its that easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryfield Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 I thought they had a fixed budget, the fact you haven't got a clue doesn't really validate your post. So, you don't want a fairer society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 A fixed budget that would rise, obviously, if they stopped the freebies to the well off and re-direct the funds collected from eye tests, dental check-ups, prescriptions etc to the less well off. Its that easy. If you provided figures of the expected rise than we could see if it's worth the bother, I heard a figure of 10% of prescriptions were paid for b4 this was brought in, if accurate that would give us 10% of that to use less the expenses of operating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 So, you don't want a fairer society? My fairer society isn't going to be reached under the current system. IMO in a fairer system every contributor should get something back where possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryfield Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 If you provided figures of the expected rise than we could see if it's worth the bother, I heard a figure of 10% of prescriptions were paid for b4 this was brought in, if accurate that would save give us 10% of that to use less the expenses of operating it. I'm sure the Scottish Government will have figures somewhere to show how much the freebies cost. Keep them hidden, get the easy votes and still blame everyone else for food banks while they have a majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 I'm sure the Scottish Government will have figures somewhere to show how much the freebies cost. Keep them hidden, get the easy votes and still blame everyone else for food banks while they have a majority. We have foodbanks due to sanctions imposed on benefit claimants, what part of that does the SG control? Under your proposals we've spend our budget plugging all the holes created by Westminster using money we get for other things, Bobby Don has a lot to answer for if you can't see the absurdity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 I'm sure the Scottish Government will have figures somewhere to show how much the freebies cost. Keep them hidden, get the easy votes and still blame everyone else for food banks while they have a majority. In England prescription charges bring the NHS £500 million a year in revenue, and cost about £4.5 million to administrate (or at least they did 4 or 5 years ago when a report I saw was written). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryfield Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 We have foodbanks due to sanctions imposed on benefit claimants, what part of that does the SG control? The SG are able to spend their budget as they see fit, the same way any family has to budget their income. The SG also have tax raising powers which still haven't been used to create a fair and just society. It's all about the votes though. How much could they raise using the 3p in the £ New Tax? A few bob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 In England prescription charges bring the NHS £500 million a year in revenue, and cost about £4.5 million to administrate (or at least they did 4 or 5 years ago when a report I saw was written). So if the Scottish population is a fraction of England's, would ours not be a fraction of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 The SG are able to spend their budget as they see fit, the same way any family has to budget their income. The SG also have tax raising powers which still haven't been used to create a fair and just society. It's all about the votes though. How much could they raise using the 3p in the £ New Tax? A few bob. Oh right, we'll all rush down to the polling stations and vote in a party that takes 3% more off of us. Does our grant increase, decrease or stay the same after we get this extra cash from raised taxes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 So if the Scottish population is a fraction of England's, would ours not be a fraction of that? And the fraction would be even smaller after we raised the threshold to £45k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 So if the Scottish population is a fraction of England's, would ours not be a fraction of that? Presumably, but the you'd imagine that the costs would also be reduced. I'm not putting forward an argument about whether or not free prescriptions are the best policy or not. It's just that I've heard many people say that it's the cheapest and most efficient way of doing it, but I've never once seen anyone put forward any evidence to support this. Obviously there are lots of other decent arguments for a universal system, but I don't believe for a second that it's cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 Presumably, but the you'd imagine that the costs would also be reduced. I'm not putting forward an argument about whether or not free prescriptions are the best policy or not. It's just that I've heard many people say that it's the cheapest and most efficient way of doing it, but I've never once seen anyone put forward any evidence to support this. Obviously there are lots of other decent arguments for a universal system, but I don't believe for a second that it's cheaper. I wouldn't mind seeing a list for all these things along with proposed costs, if we're using Tryfield's £45k threshold we'd probably be better not bothering right enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 Churches all over have done that for years, it's not quite the same as foodbanks. We have something at work where every month or so people bring in cans of stuff for the local homeless. I think the Salvation Army has a building as well where people can go along and pick up bags of groceries. Don't know the qualifying criteria, or if they just hand them out to anyone who asks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 A fixed budget that would rise, obviously, if they stopped the freebies to the well off and re-direct the funds collected from eye tests, dental check-ups, prescriptions etc to the less well off. Its that easy. No it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 Churches all over have done that for years, it's not quite the same as foodbanks. True, the people actually eat on site rather than do takeaway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 We have something at work where every month or so people bring in cans of stuff for the local homeless. I think the Salvation Army has a building as well where people can go along and pick up bags of groceries. Don't know the qualifying criteria, or if they just hand them out to anyone who asks. These places have always existed, most people can't just swan into a foodbank and pick up bags of groceries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 Presumably, but the you'd imagine that the costs would also be reduced. I'm not putting forward an argument about whether or not free prescriptions are the best policy or not. It's just that I've heard many people say that it's the cheapest and most efficient way of doing it, but I've never once seen anyone put forward any evidence to support this. Obviously there are lots of other decent arguments for a universal system, but I don't believe for a second that it's cheaper. I'm all for free prescriptions, not surprising seeing as I'm on a repeat prescription for what I expect to be life. I could easily afford to pay the regular charges if my current situation remained the same but I'd imagine many poorer people in a similar situation couldn't (especially those that had to give up work because of the associated medical issues). I could understand if they charged for one offs but that then raises the issue of fairness (I.e. some folk get yearly supplies for nothing yet folk needing a single batch of antibiotics would need to pay?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 These places have always existed, most people can't just swan into a foodbank and pick up bags of groceries. But they can be fed and watered elsewhere if they want to. Up to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 I would assume that The Unfair Dismissal and Statement of Reasons for Dismissal (Variation of Qualifying Period) Order 2012 and other changes to employee rights have had an effect as well. The bit-by-bit removal/alteration of legislation has effectively made 3 million people have little or no protection from dismissal without reason. My step-daughter's partner was dismissed from his job without reason at the beginning of this week. Thankfully the boss had a heart and reinstated him. If he hadn't though the pair of them would have had a struggle - they'd only just moved into a 3 bedroom flat with her 30 weeks pregnant. Out of interest I went and checked what the White Paper said on employment rights legislation. Whilst there are commitments to restore the 90 day consulation period for redundancy for firms over 100 employees, and restoring employee shareholder status, there are no plans to repeal legislation that affects employees working in much smaller businesses. Instead the government confirmed in the white paper that existing UK laws would remain in place after independence but they would be “tailored to Scotland’s needs” - whatever that means. What worries me is that, given the centre-right economic policies of all of our political parties (including the SNP), much of this legislation against individual worker's rights will not be repealed. Why was there not a more fundamental commitment on individual worker's rights in the White Paper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.