Aberdeen BT Facebook account claims food banks are "normal"

[H_B]

These places have always existed, most people can't just swan into a foodbank and pick up bags of groceries.

I think someone earlier said you had to be referred....

[H_B]

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of our political parties (including the SNP), much of this legislation against individual worker's rights will not be repealed.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?

I think this is a great point. Employee rights have gone through the floor in the last 20 years.

[Casual Bystander]

Right I think people are missing the point here.

Pretty much since post war there have been some form of social support network provided by the government, and before that there was a selection of well meaning bodies whether they were religious or just purely altruistic and philanthropic. The fact that these exist is not in debate.

What is in debate is that the massive increase in food-banks and that the Bitter Together campaign is trying to spin that as a positive. That is a despicable attitude to take. It is dismissing the troubles of the people in favour of political spin and is a callous and heinous act by the person(s) responsible.

What is even more despicable is that on the Facebook page responsible they refuse to comment; either to defend their comments (although I am not sure how that would work) or to apologise for them. I had a look at it several times yesterday and there were numerous people posting the image onto the page and asking what was meant by it. There response? Deleting those posts and banning those users.

[ayrmad]

But they can be fed and watered elsewhere if they want to. Up to them.

If they want to drag their kids along to eat with junkies and losers.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

I think someone earlier said you had to be referred....

You do. I can't speak for other areas but my LA has pretty strict criteria. People can't just wander in and collect a free weeks shopping.

[ayrmad]

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of our political parties (including the SNP), much of this legislation against individual worker's rights will not be repealed.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?

I've no idea, but that document is way too big as it is, about 600 pages too big.

[Tryfield]

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?

But but but, the fairness. The just society?

I know and you know that the 3p in the £ rise will never be used. It is all about the votes, all parties included.

[ayrmad]

But but but, the fairness. The just society?

I know and you know that the 3p in the £ rise will never be used. It is all about the votes, all parties included.

They'll never use it because it's self-defeating as far as I've been led to believe.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

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?)

That's all fair enough, and I agree that if you do charge people it's tricky to decide where to draw the line.

I'm pretty much on the fence when it comes to whether to charge or not (although leaning towards the 'some should pay' side). I do see that there are good arguments for a universal system, but I don't agree that it's cheaper, and I also think that the way the English system works often gets misrepresented on here. There are lots and lots of exemptions from charges in England, including children up to 16 (or 18 if in education), over 60s, pregnant women or women with children under 12 months, people on certain benefits, people suffering from a range of chronic conditions etc. Despite this variety of exemptions to sort out it still brings in enough revenue to the NHS to make it worth continuing with. It's also worth saying that anyone can get a £104 pre-payment certificate (which can be paid for in installments) which gets someone unlimited prescriptions for 12 months.

There was also a study which looked at the abolishing of charges in Wales, and found that after doing away with the charges that they didn't see the increase in prescription numbers that they were expecting. This suggests that there aren't actually lots of people who are going without necessary medicines because they can't afford the prescription fees, which is often put forward as an argument for the universal system. However, it's also possible to turn that around and say that making it free doesn't put too much extra pressure on the system if the numbers stay relatively constant.

I'm not arguing that the system in England is perfect (I think we do need to look at extending the exemptions for people on low incomes), but I don't think it's a bad way of doing things either.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

Anyway, I'm boring people to death with that, so to get back on-topic, that BT page saying that people shouldn't be upset about poverty because other places have poverty isn't the most inspiring of messages...

[ayrmad]

In England over 90% of prescriptions are handed out free of charge.

That would be a better response if a wee debate is wanted, his £500M figure won't be far away, I've no idea about the set up and recovery costs.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

Bollox.

In England over 90% of prescriptions are handed out free of charge.

You need to get your facts right.

Yeah, see that doesn't actually contradict what I just said. In fact, it's in the government report I got my facts from:

"Nearly 90% of the 843 million prescription items dispensed each year are free. However, prescription charges raise almost £500M per year for NHS services."

"The core administrative costs that are required to support the current system of exemptions are relatively low. Costs arise from issuing prescription pre‑payment certificates by NHS Business Services Authority and exemption certificates to those that are exempt on the basis of a medical condition or pregnancy. This is the only direct cost of the system that can be identified and the cost in 2007–08 was £4.5m"

[ayrmad]

The £4.5m part bothers me, the cost per person is minscule, whenever I read things about costs it never works out at less than 10p a person.

Perhaps those departments are just far more financially efficient than the rest.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

The £4.5m part bothers me, the cost per person is minscule, whenever I read things about costs it never works out at less than 10p a person.

Perhaps those departments are just far more financially efficient than the rest.

From reading the report, the author was pretty pro-free prescriptions IIRC, so I've got no reason to think that he'd downplay the costs involved in sorting out all the current loopholes. With all the departments and people in Whitehall I suppose the law of averages says that some of them must be reasonably competent and efficient at what they do.

[ayrmad]

From reading the report, the author was pretty pro-free prescriptions IIRC, so I've got no reason to think that he'd downplay the costs involved in sorting out all the current loopholes. With all the departments and people in Whitehall I suppose the law of averages says that some of them must be reasonably competent and efficient at what they do.

I'm not suggesting anyone downplayed it I'm just curious as to why almost everything seems to cost a lot more than buttons a head, some departments will indeed be better than others at being prudent and efficient.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

I'm not suggesting anyone downplayed it I'm just curious as to why almost everything seems to cost a lot more than buttons a head, some departments will indeed be better than others at being prudent and efficient.

Ah right. Yeah, it's a fair point. I did try looking for other sources and more details, but this report and one produced by the Welsh Goverment were the only ones that had any other useful information at all.

[ayrmad]

Ah right. Yeah, it's a fair point. I did try looking for other sources and more details, but this report and one produced by the Welsh Goverment were the only ones that had any other useful information at all.

It costs my local council 6 figures to govern a few hundred taxi and PHC's and all the drivers.

[Baxter Parp]

Bollox.

In England over 90% of prescriptions are handed out free of charge.

You need to get your facts right.

"Sixty per cent of items were dispensed free to patients exempt from the prescription charge because of old age (aged 60 and over) and five per cent went to the young (aged under 16 or 16-18 and in full-time education) who are also exempt from the charge."

That's a hell of a heavy burden on everybody else.

http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB11291

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

"Sixty per cent of items were dispensed free to patients exempt from the prescription charge because of old age (aged 60 and over) and five per cent went to the young (aged under 16 or 16-18 and in full-time education) who are also exempt from the charge."

That's a hell of a heavy burden on everybody else.

http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB11291

It's lucky civic minded folk like myself are happy to shoulder that burden for the greater good of the NHS then.

[Thumper]

It's lucky civic minded folk like myself are happy to shoulder that burden for the greater good of the NHS then.

You're shouldering it either way. It's not like Alex Salmond shits free packets of penicillin. The difference is that by charging at point of use it becomes a flat tax and thus regressive.