FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Bowel Screening NHS Scotland
Bowel Screening NHS Scotland
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Thanks for reminding us that England can't have things, but has to pay for the bankrupt Scottish freeloaders." should you not write direct to your MP if not happy? | |||
| |||
"And what will that achieve? The Barnett formula being ripped up? Mrs Sturgeon being told to stop spending money that she doesn't have? It would be lovely if it happened, but I can imagine the outcry from Scotland." nothing to do with Scotland what you get in England, you need to write and request a lower age for bowel screening and other health checks, you need to ask nicely to get the same as those in Scotland | |||
| |||
"We can't afford it, because we have to give you so much money which you waste. That's the point." excuse me, but screening for cancer at an early age is not a waste, it is proven to both save NHS money and indeed life in the long run | |||
| |||
 | |||
"The point is we have to give Scotland more under the Barnett formula than we can spend on ourselves. I am not saying the screening is a waste - given the appalling health of the Scots and their poor life-expectancy, but money is wasted in Scotland on many things." on many things: what is your opinion of "many things" ? would that be such as free prescriptions,? free university education? free care for the elderly in old age? or another item? | |||
| |||
"Yes. All the things that you cannot afford to do. Just wasting our money." I would lay a reasonable bet that an independent Scotland would provide the same services through higher taxation. Silly right wing kippers and demented working class Tory’s can always be relied on to fight for a poorer quality of life because their Eton old boy hero’s have convinced them that this is the case. It is much more important for everyone to pay 1% less tax because 1% of your £20,000 a year is £200 and you don’t need to know how much 1% of my £20 million a year is..... | |||
| |||
"Go and place your bet then! Most of Scotland doesn't work or earns little. There are not enough people to tax. Hence the Barnett formula. Hence we have to prop up Scotland. Hence why an independent Scotland would not meet the economic criteria to re-join the EU. Economically Scotland is far more of a basket case than Greece. " 
You ever been to Scotland Andy?
I suspect not,
you just heard that its North of Manchester ehhh, where all the poor people live  | |||
| |||
"I was listening to data the other day saying that routine screening wasn't helping, and creating too many false positives." A conversation was on Jeremy Vine Radio 2 yesterday it reported from studies that early screening from Age 50 saves much more lives as early detection is more often found (stage1). It also stated "some" are put off and do not get tested due to the possibility of a false positive, this can be common in PSA checks, but if a high psa found further investigation is carried out, such as MRI and then a scraping if needed. . by age of 60 many can be at stage 3 or stage 4, a point of no return. | |||
| |||
"Yes. All the things that you cannot afford to do. Just wasting our money." u need to take a wee valium ur getting in a right wee state!!! Lol lol lol | |||
"Go and place your bet then! Most of Scotland doesn't work or earns little. There are not enough people to tax. Hence the Barnett formula. Hence we have to prop up Scotland. Hence why an independent Scotland would not meet the economic criteria to re-join the EU. Economically Scotland is far more of a basket case than Greece." I don’t think you really understand taxation or the Barnett formula. Out of interest, if Scotland is such a burden on England, why were English politicians so firmly behind the Better Together campaign? | |||
"Go and place your bet then! Most of Scotland doesn't work or earns little. There are not enough people to tax. Hence the Barnett formula. Hence we have to prop up Scotland. Hence why an independent Scotland would not meet the economic criteria to re-join the EU. Economically Scotland is far more of a basket case than Greece. " In the space of two threads, you have made more completely false statements than most people make in their whole time on Fab. Scotlands economy is bigger than those Portugal and Ireland - both of which are EU Members. | |||
"Yes. All the things that you cannot afford to do. Just wasting our money. I would lay a reasonable bet that an independent Scotland would provide the same services through higher taxation. Silly right wing kippers and demented working class Tory’s can always be relied on to fight for a poorer quality of life because their Eton old boy hero’s have convinced them that this is the case. It is much more important for everyone to pay 1% less tax because 1% of your £20,000 a year is £200 and you don’t need to know how much 1% of my £20 million a year is..... " It wouldn't. An independent Scotland would see cuts on an unprecedented scale. Tax increases wouldn't even scratch the surface. | |||
"Thanks for reminding us that England can't have things, but has to pay for the bankrupt Scottish freeloaders." | |||
"Thanks for reminding us that England can't have things, but has to pay for the bankrupt Scottish freeloaders. "Interesting words; considering, Scotland still offers much more to the people of Scotland, such as free prescriptions, free eye tests, free university tuition, free personal care in old age, free parking at most hospitals, no bridge tolls, early health checking from age 50 for most cancer screening, infact so much is free that I have forgotten most that is on offer, just take it for granted. . and of course to top that we have fantastic scenery & tourism on our doorstep, the weather is getting much better, large homes and estates are much cheaper, more wild life, less pollution, lower numbers in school classes . in fact so much to offer, where do we start? . Perhaps best not to, we will continue to paint a picture of us running around like savages in kilts, poverty, no cash, terrible weather yep, nothing nice in Scotland, best stick to your industrial England, you can keep your polluted, congested London lol.  | |||
"The point is we have to give Scotland more under the Barnett formula than we can spend on ourselves. I am not saying the screening is a waste - given the appalling health of the Scots and their poor life-expectancy, but money is wasted in Scotland on many things." You do realise this is the UKs money not England's !! If you look into it there are sound reasons for the barrnet formula. Your arguement is with your no and the Tories for not offering this year early. | |||
"Thanks for reminding us that England can't have things, but has to pay for the bankrupt Scottish freeloaders.
Interesting words;
considering, Scotland still offers much more to the people of Scotland, such as free prescriptions, free eye tests, free university tuition, free personal care in old age, free parking at most hospitals, no bridge tolls, early health checking from age 50 for most cancer screening,
infact so much is free that I have forgotten most that is on offer, just take it for granted.
.
and of course to top that we have fantastic scenery & tourism on our doorstep, the weather is getting much better, large homes and estates are much cheaper, more wild life, less pollution, lower numbers in school classes
.
in fact so much to offer, where do we start?
.
Perhaps best not to, we will continue to paint a picture of us running around like savages in kilts, poverty, no cash, terrible weather yep, nothing nice in Scotland, best stick to your industrial England, you can keep your polluted, congested London lol. "These things are not free. This is the way Scotland deciceds to spends its budget. I pay £800 per year in Scotland in tax than someone on the same income in England. | |||
| |||
| |||
"people that work should pay about £ 3 for a prescription to stop waste." People that work are already paying for everyone’s prescriptions. So, you’re basically promoting an additional tax on the sick. Good work. | |||
"people that work should pay about £ 3 for a prescription to stop waste. People that work are already paying for everyone’s prescriptions. So, you’re basically promoting an additional tax on the sick. Good work."
| |||
"We can't afford it, because we have to give you so much money which you waste. That's the point." You are aware this decision came from "UK National Screening" . It was decided due to only 6 million population in Scotland, this would be done from age 50 and repeating every 2 years. as setting up testing facilities to carry out tests in England with a population of 10 times that, would involve huge setting up. . UK National screening has decided that there will be some one off tests for some of England from age 55, these will be from select locations and via post code selection. . In Scotland it is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in both men and women with approximately 3,700 new cases diagnosed in 2015. 95% of cases occur in people aged over 50 years. Over the last 10 years, bowel cancer incidence and mortality rates (2005-2015) in Scotland have decreased in both sexes. | |||
"people that work should pay about £ 3 for a prescription to stop waste. People that work are already paying for everyone’s prescriptions. So, you’re basically promoting an additional tax on the sick. Good work." No difference from dental treatment | |||
"Screening starts at age 50, and normally on your 50th birthday you get an invitation for first bowel screening, as well as PSA etc why does this start at 60 in England? should it be reduced in England to 50 as well ? earlier screening and detection saves life" Back to the main point in the thread Yet again England could learn from Scotlands NHS and help save lifes Then again England have the Tories running the countrys NHS | |||
"people that work should pay about £ 3 for a prescription to stop waste. People that work are already paying for everyone’s prescriptions. So, you’re basically promoting an additional tax on the sick. Good work.
"Under the old system the young and retired did not pay. Too many people are going to the doc for prescriptions for things like paracetamol or heartburn tablets that can be bought very cheaply. Too many people because they get " free " prescriptions do not use whatever they get because they know they can get more. A small charge would stop this waste. The nhs is not a finite resourse a new realisime by everyone is needed. In Scotland certain high and drugs are not available due to cost. By paying a small amount we could make these drugs available and cut out waste. | |||
"people that work should pay about £ 3 for a prescription to stop waste. People that work are already paying for everyone’s prescriptions. So, you’re basically promoting an additional tax on the sick. Good work.
Under the old system the young and retired did not pay.
Too many people are going to the doc for prescriptions for things like paracetamol or heartburn tablets that can be bought very cheaply.
Too many people because they get " free " prescriptions do not use whatever they get because they know they can get more.
A small charge would stop this waste. The nhs is not a finite resourse a new realisime by everyone is needed.
In Scotland certain high and drugs are not available due to cost. By paying a small amount we could make these drugs available and cut out waste."Your sounding more Tory day by day lol You mentioned heartburn tablets and people getting them free off prescriptions by the doctor so if someone has a hiatus hernia for example and need heartburn tablets but cant afford to always buy them what would you say to them tough shit suffer it ? | |||
| |||
"Regarding the earlier mention of heartburn remedies: You can cheaply buy things which combat heartburn once it has started. Rennies, Gaviscon, or supermarket brand equivalents. I’m not aware of anyone ever having had these on prescription. What does get prescribed is Omeprazole. It’s an inhibitor, reducing the amount of acid produced. While it is prescribed to people with chronic heartburn only, it is usually prescribed to people experiencing chronic heartburn as a direct result of having to take several other courses of medication. Likewise, paracetamol tends to only be prescribed to people experiencing long-term chronic pain; not to get out of paying 16p to deal with the occasional headache. If you want to believe the kind of shite you read in the Daily Mail, that’s fine, but please don’t regurgitate it elsewhere." | |||
"The Scottish need to test for this earlier than that the English because they deep fry everything they eat.Its logical. "Alf Smith says his deep fried mars bars have kept him alive to the ripe old age of 110, and he is still doing well, oldest man in Scotland | |||
"people that work should pay about £ 3 for a prescription to stop waste. People that work are already paying for everyone’s prescriptions. So, you’re basically promoting an additional tax on the sick. Good work.
Under the old system the young and retired did not pay.
Too many people are going to the doc for prescriptions for things like paracetamol or heartburn tablets that can be bought very cheaply.
Too many people because they get " free " prescriptions do not use whatever they get because they know they can get more.
A small charge would stop this waste. The nhs is not a finite resourse a new realisime by everyone is needed.
In Scotland certain high and drugs are not available due to cost. By paying a small amount we could make these drugs available and cut out waste.
Your sounding more Tory day by day lol
You mentioned heartburn tablets and people getting them free off prescriptions by the doctor so if someone has a hiatus hernia for example and need heartburn tablets but cant afford to always buy them what would you say to them tough shit suffer it ? "They should get them. People that are genuinely ill should get what they need even if there is a small charge. I am talking about introducing a small charge to stop wastage. The nhs is not a finite resourse! !!! | |||
"people that work should pay about £ 3 for a prescription to stop waste. People that work are already paying for everyone’s prescriptions. So, you’re basically promoting an additional tax on the sick. Good work.
Under the old system the young and retired did not pay.
Too many people are going to the doc for prescriptions for things like paracetamol or heartburn tablets that can be bought very cheaply.
Too many people because they get " free " prescriptions do not use whatever they get because they know they can get more.
A small charge would stop this waste. The nhs is not a finite resourse a new realisime by everyone is needed.
In Scotland certain high and drugs are not available due to cost. By paying a small amount we could make these drugs available and cut out waste.
Your sounding more Tory day by day lol
You mentioned heartburn tablets and people getting them free off prescriptions by the doctor so if someone has a hiatus hernia for example and need heartburn tablets but cant afford to always buy them what would you say to them tough shit suffer it ?
They should get them.
People that are genuinely ill should get what they need even if there is a small charge.
I am talking about introducing a small charge to stop wastage.
The nhs is not a finite resourse! !!!"So you want people that are ill not their fault they have an illness and you wanna charge them ? Mental!!!!! | |||
"Regarding the earlier mention of heartburn remedies: You can cheaply buy things which combat heartburn once it has started. Rennies, Gaviscon, or supermarket brand equivalents. I’m not aware of anyone ever having had these on prescription. What does get prescribed is Omeprazole. It’s an inhibitor, reducing the amount of acid produced. While it is prescribed to people with chronic heartburn only, it is usually prescribed to people experiencing chronic heartburn as a direct result of having to take several other courses of medication. Likewise, paracetamol tends to only be prescribed to people experiencing long-term chronic pain; not to get out of paying 16p to deal with the occasional headache. If you want to believe the kind of shite you read in the Daily Mail, that’s fine, but please don’t regurgitate it elsewhere." No I am talking from personal experience! !! Just one example is I work with a really tight bastard if he can get it on prescription he will. I offered a work collegue some allergy tablets that cost about £1.50 in Tesco the right cunt pipped up he has loads of them in the house. When asked if he was a bad sufferer he replied just occasional user. He stated he would not pay the one pound fifty as he had paid through his taxes. This is just one small example of what I have experienced. Any money raised and save through reduced wastege I want to see go back into the Scottish nhs. | |||
"people that work should pay about £ 3 for a prescription to stop waste. People that work are already paying for everyone’s prescriptions. So, you’re basically promoting an additional tax on the sick. Good work.
Under the old system the young and retired did not pay.
Too many people are going to the doc for prescriptions for things like paracetamol or heartburn tablets that can be bought very cheaply.
Too many people because they get " free " prescriptions do not use whatever they get because they know they can get more.
A small charge would stop this waste. The nhs is not a finite resourse a new realisime by everyone is needed.
In Scotland certain high and drugs are not available due to cost. By paying a small amount we could make these drugs available and cut out waste.
Your sounding more Tory day by day lol
You mentioned heartburn tablets and people getting them free off prescriptions by the doctor so if someone has a hiatus hernia for example and need heartburn tablets but cant afford to always buy them what would you say to them tough shit suffer it ?
They should get them.
People that are genuinely ill should get what they need even if there is a small charge.
I am talking about introducing a small charge to stop wastage.
The nhs is not a finite resourse! !!!
So you want people that are ill not their fault they have an illness and you wanna charge them ? Mental!!!!!"YES To stop wastage what do you not understand the nhs can't provide every single thing it has limits. Only the people that can afford it would pay. | |||
"people that work should pay about £ 3 for a prescription to stop waste. People that work are already paying for everyone’s prescriptions. So, you’re basically promoting an additional tax on the sick. Good work.
Under the old system the young and retired did not pay.
Too many people are going to the doc for prescriptions for things like paracetamol or heartburn tablets that can be bought very cheaply.
Too many people because they get " free " prescriptions do not use whatever they get because they know they can get more.
A small charge would stop this waste. The nhs is not a finite resourse a new realisime by everyone is needed.
In Scotland certain high and drugs are not available due to cost. By paying a small amount we could make these drugs available and cut out waste.
Your sounding more Tory day by day lol
You mentioned heartburn tablets and people getting them free off prescriptions by the doctor so if someone has a hiatus hernia for example and need heartburn tablets but cant afford to always buy them what would you say to them tough shit suffer it ?
They should get them.
People that are genuinely ill should get what they need even if there is a small charge.
I am talking about introducing a small charge to stop wastage.
The nhs is not a finite resourse! !!!
So you want people that are ill not their fault they have an illness and you wanna charge them ? Mental!!!!!"Your correct it would allow more money to be put into mental health care !!! | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Regarding the earlier mention of heartburn remedies: You can cheaply buy things which combat heartburn once it has started. Rennies, Gaviscon, or supermarket brand equivalents. I’m not aware of anyone ever having had these on prescription. What does get prescribed is Omeprazole. It’s an inhibitor, reducing the amount of acid produced. While it is prescribed to people with chronic heartburn only, it is usually prescribed to people experiencing chronic heartburn as a direct result of having to take several other courses of medication. Likewise, paracetamol tends to only be prescribed to people experiencing long-term chronic pain; not to get out of paying 16p to deal with the occasional headache. If you want to believe the kind of shite you read in the Daily Mail, that’s fine, but please don’t regurgitate it elsewhere." I've often had Omeprazole prescribed at the same time as I've been prescribed Naproxen (anti inflammatory).Maybe it's popular as Naproxen is prescribed to those with back pain which is a major health issue | |||
"That's sick as fuck Greenoakmale That you would actually charge people that are ill when it's not their fault for being ill You sound like a Tory you defo ain't no socialist " What about all of the drug users that get in such a state that they need medical treatment or the alcoholics who cost the NHS a fortune! So you believe they should have free treatment ? | |||
"All those that complain about free prescriptions in Scotland do you hand money over then ? Or do you accept the free prescriptions ? Bit double standards " I don't get any free prescriptions. Now what would you prefer, quicker cancer treatment for all (and more lives saved) or free prescriptions for all? | |||
"All those that complain about free prescriptions in Scotland do you hand money over then ? Or do you accept the free prescriptions ? Bit double standards " Yes in Britain we pay NI to cover NHS and if working pay for prescriptions as well | |||
"That's sick as fuck Greenoakmale That you would actually charge people that are ill when it's not their fault for being ill You sound like a Tory you defo ain't no socialist What about all of the drug users that get in such a state that they need medical treatment or the alcoholics who cost the NHS a fortune! So you believe they should have free treatment ? " Do you not give shit about your fellow human beings ? Should they just be told fuck you we wont treat you ? | |||
"All those that complain about free prescriptions in Scotland do you hand money over then ? Or do you accept the free prescriptions ? Bit double standards I don't get any free prescriptions. Now what would you prefer, quicker cancer treatment for all (and more lives saved) or free prescriptions for all?" Both Do you expect the elderly to pay for prescriptions or the people with illness through no fault of their own ? You lot sound like Tory lovers | |||
"All those that complain about free prescriptions in Scotland do you hand money over then ? Or do you accept the free prescriptions ? Bit double standards I don't get any free prescriptions. Now what would you prefer, quicker cancer treatment for all (and more lives saved) or free prescriptions for all? Both Do you expect the elderly to pay for prescriptions or the people with illness through no fault of their own ? You lot sound like Tory lovers " The elderly were one group, along with many others, who never paid for prescriptions and wouldn't if we reverted back to the old system. So try again...what would you prefer, quicker cancer treatment for all (and more lives saved) or free prescriptions for all? | |||
| |||
"All those that complain about free prescriptions in Scotland do you hand money over then ? Or do you accept the free prescriptions ? Bit double standards I don't get any free prescriptions. Now what would you prefer, quicker cancer treatment for all (and more lives saved) or free prescriptions for all? Both Do you expect the elderly to pay for prescriptions or the people with illness through no fault of their own ? You lot sound like Tory lovers The elderly were one group, along with many others, who never paid for prescriptions and wouldn't if we reverted back to the old system. So try again...what would you prefer, quicker cancer treatment for all (and more lives saved) or free prescriptions for all? " Again this time i will shout it " BOTH" got it yet ? I noticed you left the people that have illness which are no fault if their own do you want them to pay prescriptions ? | |||
"All those that complain about free prescriptions in Scotland do you hand money over then ? Or do you accept the free prescriptions ? Bit double standards I don't get any free prescriptions. Now what would you prefer, quicker cancer treatment for all (and more lives saved) or free prescriptions for all? Both Do you expect the elderly to pay for prescriptions or the people with illness through no fault of their own ? You lot sound like Tory lovers The elderly were one group, along with many others, who never paid for prescriptions and wouldn't if we reverted back to the old system. So try again...what would you prefer, quicker cancer treatment for all (and more lives saved) or free prescriptions for all? " The reality of prescription charges is that any money raised is a drop in the ocean compared to cancer treatments at thousands of pounds a week. I'd never, ever turn my back on ill people but saying the many should pay to help the few invites the repost of the opposite frame of mind. | |||
"All those that complain about free prescriptions in Scotland do you hand money over then ? Or do you accept the free prescriptions ? Bit double standards I don't get any free prescriptions. Now what would you prefer, quicker cancer treatment for all (and more lives saved) or free prescriptions for all? Both Do you expect the elderly to pay for prescriptions or the people with illness through no fault of their own ? You lot sound like Tory lovers The elderly were one group, along with many others, who never paid for prescriptions and wouldn't if we reverted back to the old system. So try again...what would you prefer, quicker cancer treatment for all (and more lives saved) or free prescriptions for all? Again this time i will shout it " BOTH" got it yet ? I noticed you left the people that have illness which are no fault if their own do you want them to pay prescriptions ?" I included them in the 'others' grouping. In the real world decisions have to be made on spending so you can't spend the same money twice, subsidising free prescriptions and cancer treatment, it can only go on one. So which one would you prefer it was spent on? | |||
"All those that complain about free prescriptions in Scotland do you hand money over then ? Or do you accept the free prescriptions ? Bit double standards I don't get any free prescriptions. Now what would you prefer, quicker cancer treatment for all (and more lives saved) or free prescriptions for all? Both Do you expect the elderly to pay for prescriptions or the people with illness through no fault of their own ? You lot sound like Tory lovers The elderly were one group, along with many others, who never paid for prescriptions and wouldn't if we reverted back to the old system. So try again...what would you prefer, quicker cancer treatment for all (and more lives saved) or free prescriptions for all? Again this time i will shout it " BOTH" got it yet ? I noticed you left the people that have illness which are no fault if their own do you want them to pay prescriptions ? I included them in the 'others' grouping. In the real world decisions have to be made on spending so you can't spend the same money twice, subsidising free prescriptions and cancer treatment, it can only go on one. So which one would you prefer it was spent on? " 3rd time "BOTH" | |||
| |||
"That's sick as fuck Greenoakmale That you would actually charge people that are ill when it's not their fault for being ill You sound like a Tory you defo ain't no socialist What about all of the drug users that get in such a state that they need medical treatment or the alcoholics who cost the NHS a fortune! So you believe they should have free treatment ? Do you not give shit about your fellow human beings ? Should they just be told fuck you we wont treat you ? " I know plenty of people who deserve treatment who would not be able to pay for it and byes they deserve it. And yes I would tell a junky to go do one because they are taking resources that more deserving people need. And before you start spouting about fellow human beings a junky will ripp you off to get thier next 10 bag | |||
"That's sick as fuck Greenoakmale That you would actually charge people that are ill when it's not their fault for being ill You sound like a Tory you defo ain't no socialist What about all of the drug users that get in such a state that they need medical treatment or the alcoholics who cost the NHS a fortune! So you believe they should have free treatment ? Do you not give shit about your fellow human beings ? Should they just be told fuck you we wont treat you ? I know plenty of people who deserve treatment who would not be able to pay for it and byes they deserve it. And yes I would tell a junky to go do one because they are taking resources that more deserving people need. And before you start spouting about fellow human beings a junky will ripp you off to get thier next 10 bag " Offfttttt so you judging all drug users that they are all the same now wow!!! So some drug users just fall into a bad habit and cant get out of it they do not steal but then again you will pre judge them without knowing a damn thing about them What the fuck is this world turned into where you would turn you back in fellow himan being ms that need help sick as fuck | |||
"All those that complain about free prescriptions in Scotland do you hand money over then ? Or do you accept the free prescriptions ? Bit double standards I don't get any free prescriptions. Now what would you prefer, quicker cancer treatment for all (and more lives saved) or free prescriptions for all? Both Do you expect the elderly to pay for prescriptions or the people with illness through no fault of their own ? You lot sound like Tory lovers The elderly were one group, along with many others, who never paid for prescriptions and wouldn't if we reverted back to the old system. So try again...what would you prefer, quicker cancer treatment for all (and more lives saved) or free prescriptions for all? Again this time i will shout it " BOTH" got it yet ? I noticed you left the people that have illness which are no fault if their own do you want them to pay prescriptions ? I included them in the 'others' grouping. In the real world decisions have to be made on spending so you can't spend the same money twice, subsidising free prescriptions and cancer treatment, it can only go on one. So which one would you prefer it was spent on? 3rd time "BOTH" " You can't spend the same money twice. I'll explain it in terms you'll definitely understand, you want a pizza and a kebab for dinner but only have enough money for one. That means you can't buy both. This is the sort of spot you get yourself into when you have to defend any policy just because the SNP came up with it. The reality is you have no answer to this, or do have an answer but are unable to goes against an SNP policy. | |||
| |||
"But your policy won't work either! Reverting to paying for prescriptions will not fund cancer care." You do make a good point there | |||
| |||
| |||
"So anyone living in Scotland have a problem with the bowel screening at 50 or would you rather it be like England at 60? And people in England would you rather it be 50 or 60?" 60+, because that's what the evidence recommends. | |||
"So anyone living in Scotland have a problem with the bowel screening at 50 or would you rather it be like England at 60? And people in England would you rather it be 50 or 60? 60+, because that's what the evidence recommends. " Not even if it could safe lives at 50+? Or how about cervical cancer do you think that should be lowered ? It could save alot of lives | |||
| |||
"So anyone living in Scotland have a problem with the bowel screening at 50 or would you rather it be like England at 60? And people in England would you rather it be 50 or 60? 60+, because that's what the evidence recommends. Not even if it could safe lives at 50+? Or how about cervical cancer do you think that should be lowered ? It could save alot of lives " The evidence says it doesn't. I want medical policies to be evidence based. | |||
"So anyone living in Scotland have a problem with the bowel screening at 50 or would you rather it be like England at 60? And people in England would you rather it be 50 or 60? 60+, because that's what the evidence recommends. Not even if it could safe lives at 50+? Or how about cervical cancer do you think that should be lowered ? It could save alot of lives The evidence says it doesn't. I want medical policies to be evidence based." To me the earlier the better if can save your life | |||
"So anyone living in Scotland have a problem with the bowel screening at 50 or would you rather it be like England at 60? And people in England would you rather it be 50 or 60? 60+, because that's what the evidence recommends. Not even if it could safe lives at 50+? Or how about cervical cancer do you think that should be lowered ? It could save alot of lives The evidence says it doesn't. I want medical policies to be evidence based. To me the earlier the better if can save your life " The medical experts who have done the research have found that not to be the case. | |||
"Charging for prescriptions punishes the poor and ill not a smart move " those who are under 18.... or over 65.... or are on benefits of some sort, were NEVER paying for prescriptions in the first place..... "Did you all forget not everyone is rich and sitting on goldmines or have good health " i absolutely believe that if you are in the categories i stated above you should be entitled to free prescriptions and i don't begrudge them at all..... I don't think people should be entitled to a free prescription if they are rich for example, just because they happen to live in a certain place, especially if that money can be pumped back into helping the very service you are taking advantage off...... see...you laude over the poor... but lets take the couple who won the euromillions for example.... do you think they should get free prescriptions? "I bet you lot would take free school meals away from kids and free bus passes away for the elderly too wouldnt put it passed you lol " nope... think they should get theirs free as well...... I do think a lot of things should be means tested thought.... | |||
"Charging for prescriptions punishes the poor and ill not a smart move those who are under 18.... or over 65.... or are on benefits of some sort, were NEVER paying for prescriptions in the first place..... Did you all forget not everyone is rich and sitting on goldmines or have good health i absolutely believe that if you are in the categories i stated above you should be entitled to free prescriptions and i don't begrudge them at all..... I don't think people should be entitled to a free prescription if they are rich for example, just because they happen to live in a certain place, especially if that money can be pumped back into helping the very service you are taking advantage off...... see...you laude over the poor... but lets take the couple who won the euromillions for example.... do you think they should get free prescriptions? I bet you lot would take free school meals away from kids and free bus passes away for the elderly too wouldnt put it passed you lol nope... think they should get theirs free as well...... I do think a lot of things should be means tested thought...." Perfect example right here Katie Price has made alot of money over the years do you believe she should not be entited to benefits ? Alot of people went mental over that | |||
"But your policy won't work either! Reverting to paying for prescriptions will not fund cancer care." It does if you direct the money saved from the additional 'free prescriptions's and divert it to cancer care instead. If you have figures, rather than a vague claim, showing that couldn't be done then the floor is all yours. | |||
"Charging for prescriptions punishes the poor and ill not a smart move those who are under 18.... or over 65.... or are on benefits of some sort, were NEVER paying for prescriptions in the first place..... Did you all forget not everyone is rich and sitting on goldmines or have good health i absolutely believe that if you are in the categories i stated above you should be entitled to free prescriptions and i don't begrudge them at all..... I don't think people should be entitled to a free prescription if they are rich for example, just because they happen to live in a certain place, especially if that money can be pumped back into helping the very service you are taking advantage off...... see...you laude over the poor... but lets take the couple who won the euromillions for example.... do you think they should get free prescriptions? I bet you lot would take free school meals away from kids and free bus passes away for the elderly too wouldnt put it passed you lol nope... think they should get theirs free as well...... I do think a lot of things should be means tested thought.... Perfect example right here Katie Price has made alot of money over the years do you believe she should not be entited to benefits ? Alot of people went mental over that " katie price's CHILD should be entitled to all the benefits he should get until he is 18.... if he is still entitled after 18 to anything, which he will be, then he should get them..... if they lived in scotland should HE be entitled to free prescriptions... absolutely if they lived in scotland should SHE be entitled to free prescriptions... absolutely not!!!! notice the difference...... | |||
" You can't spend the same money twice. I'll explain it in terms you'll definitely understand, you want a pizza and a kebab for dinner but only have enough money for one. That means you can't buy both. This is the sort of spot you get yourself into when you have to defend any policy just because the SNP came up with it. The reality is you have no answer to this, or do have an answer but are unable to goes against an SNP policy. " But you can get a donor meat pizza! 
With regards to the free prescription issue. Due to the numbers it was costing more to administer the scheme than it was collecting. Most ill folk were kids, pensioners, on benefits or chronically ill so were already free. The relatively few that were paid for did not cover the cost of the staff required to sort out the paperwork. Not quite the same in England due to the larger numbers involved. But also the reason why Wales and Northern Ireland are also free to all.
So the money saved on not administrating prescriptions is put to use elsewhere in the NHS.
| |||
" You can't spend the same money twice. I'll explain it in terms you'll definitely understand, you want a pizza and a kebab for dinner but only have enough money for one. That means you can't buy both. This is the sort of spot you get yourself into when you have to defend any policy just because the SNP came up with it. The reality is you have no answer to this, or do have an answer but are unable to goes against an SNP policy. But you can get a donor meat pizza!
With regards to the free prescription issue. Due to the numbers it was costing more to administer the scheme than it was collecting. Most ill folk were kids, pensioners, on benefits or chronically ill so were already free. The relatively few that were paid for did not cover the cost of the staff required to sort out the paperwork. Not quite the same in England due to the larger numbers involved. But also the reason why Wales and Northern Ireland are also free to all.
So the money saved on not administrating prescriptions is put to use elsewhere in the NHS.
"Where are you getting your info from about the admin costs? | |||
"But your policy won't work either! Reverting to paying for prescriptions will not fund cancer care. It does if you direct the money saved from the additional 'free prescriptions's and divert it to cancer care instead. If you have figures, rather than a vague claim, showing that couldn't be done then the floor is all yours." Go look yourself. It's a bit self-evident anyway! | |||
"Go and place your bet then! Most of Scotland doesn't work or earns little. There are not enough people to tax. " I was enjoying this thread until I read that. Prejudice and bigotry writ large. | |||
"So anyone living in Scotland have a problem with the bowel screening at 50 or would you rather it be like England at 60? And people in England would you rather it be 50 or 60? 60+, because that's what the evidence recommends. Not even if it could safe lives at 50+? Or how about cervical cancer do you think that should be lowered ? It could save alot of lives The evidence says it doesn't. I want medical policies to be evidence based. To me the earlier the better if can save your life The medical experts who have done the research have found that not to be the case. " Cancer Research UK has calculated that if bowel cancer is caught early enough it can be cured in more than 90% of cases, but the disease still claims more than 16,000 lives across the UK each year. A Department of Health spokesperson said: "Bowel cancer is one of the biggest cancer killers in England and we know one of the main reasons is because too many people are diagnosed late. "That is why we trialled a campaign earlier this year to raise awareness of the key signs and symptoms and to encourage people with them to visit their GP. We hope to launch a wider campaign shortly. "We are also investing £60 million over the next four years to fund flexible sigmoidoscopy - a new screening technique for people around 55 - which will help save 3,000 lives every year." Obviously this is "England" In Scotland the population is tested every 2 years from the age of 50 onward. . and then you get CLCC who will refuse testing until 60, good luck to CLCC | |||
| |||
""...Many screen detected cancers have a protracted and indolent natural course with no adverse effects for decades, and patients are at greater risk from the ensuing cascade of diagnostic imaging and unnecessary treatments than from the disease itself." (Dahm, 2017)" CLCC we all have choices and there are arguments on both sides for screening, but no one can deny that any cancer caught in early stages has far better outcome. would you rather be detected with stage 1 or stage 4, your choice. . The good thing is that in Scotland everyone is checked from age 50 and this is repeated every 2 years, I have taken this up as have many friends, if nothing else it gives peace of mind when results are clear. . again your choice, but you typically look for an argument within any topic | |||
""...Many screen detected cancers have a protracted and indolent natural course with no adverse effects for decades, and patients are at greater risk from the ensuing cascade of diagnostic imaging and unnecessary treatments than from the disease itself." (Dahm, 2017) CLCC we all have choices and there are arguments on both sides for screening, but no one can deny that any cancer caught in early stages has far better outcome. would you rather be detected with stage 1 or stage 4, your choice. . The good thing is that in Scotland everyone is checked from age 50 and this is repeated every 2 years, I have taken this up as have many friends, if nothing else it gives peace of mind when results are clear. . again your choice, but you typically look for an argument within any topic" I look at evidence, not anecdote. | |||
""...Many screen detected cancers have a protracted and indolent natural course with no adverse effects for decades, and patients are at greater risk from the ensuing cascade of diagnostic imaging and unnecessary treatments than from the disease itself." (Dahm, 2017) CLCC we all have choices and there are arguments on both sides for screening, but no one can deny that any cancer caught in early stages has far better outcome. would you rather be detected with stage 1 or stage 4, your choice. . The good thing is that in Scotland everyone is checked from age 50 and this is repeated every 2 years, I have taken this up as have many friends, if nothing else it gives peace of mind when results are clear. . again your choice, but you typically look for an argument within any topic I look at evidence, not anecdote. "Can you point me in the direction of the evidence stating that screening at age 50 is no better than screening at 60 Surely screening earluer gives a better chance of spotting the cancer Aa I stated earlier the age of 50 was first mooted when the nhs first suggested screening | |||
"But your policy won't work either! Reverting to paying for prescriptions will not fund cancer care. It does if you direct the money saved from the additional 'free prescriptions's and divert it to cancer care instead. If you have figures, rather than a vague claim, showing that couldn't be done then the floor is all yours. Go look yourself. It's a bit self-evident anyway!" From reading your previous posts it seems this is a theme of yours. You make a claim and then when you can't back it up you tell others to look for it themselves. As it turns out I have looked for it. When the bill was introduced the administration costs of the prescription exemption scheme to the NHS was £1.54m. On top of that there were £73,000 costs for publicity matierial for the scheme and a further £83,954 was spent to combat fraud. I'm afraid if it was self evident to you then you may want to review your thought process. | |||
""...Many screen detected cancers have a protracted and indolent natural course with no adverse effects for decades, and patients are at greater risk from the ensuing cascade of diagnostic imaging and unnecessary treatments than from the disease itself." (Dahm, 2017) CLCC we all have choices and there are arguments on both sides for screening, but no one can deny that any cancer caught in early stages has far better outcome. would you rather be detected with stage 1 or stage 4, your choice. . The good thing is that in Scotland everyone is checked from age 50 and this is repeated every 2 years, I have taken this up as have many friends, if nothing else it gives peace of mind when results are clear. . again your choice, but you typically look for an argument within any topic I look at evidence, not anecdote.
Can you point me in the direction of the evidence stating that screening at age 50 is no better than screening at 60
Surely screening earluer gives a better chance of spotting the cancer
Aa I stated earlier the age of 50 was first mooted when the nhs first suggested screening"(One note I will add at the top just in case people don’t read all the way to the end, if it is better at 50 than 60, then why not 40? If 40, why not 30 etc?) Sure, you can look at the referenced paper at the top of this quote, you can also look at the below paper: PC Gøtzsche; Commentary: Screening: a seductive paradigm that has generally failed us, International Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 44, Issue 1, 1 February 2015, Pages 278–280, You can also read the below info from the US National Library of Medicine. Can screening prevent diseases? Screening tests are often advertised with slogans like “prevention is better than cure.” But most of them cannot influence whether someone will get ill. Many people wrongly mistake screening for “prevention,” and some think that having regular screening tests can protect them from a disease. But that is not the case: screening tests usually cannot prevent diseases. Sometimes doctors also tend to be too optimistic when it comes to the benefits of screening. A screening program can only be considered to be a “preventive” measure if it aims to determine and influence risk factors, or detect and treat abnormal changes that could later develop into a disease. One example of this is endoscopy of the bowel, which makes it possible to detect and remove intestinal polyps that could later develop into cancer. So preventive treatment can stop diseases from developing in some people. One disadvantage, however, is that many people then have treatment although they would never have got the disease. This is because many abnormal changes do not necessarily develop into a more serious condition, or might even go back to normal again by themselves, without causing any health problems. Regardless of whether or not you have screening tests: if you have worrying symptoms, it is important to take them seriously and have them checked out by a doctor. Can screening have harmful effects too? Every screening test can be harmful too. For example, x-ray examinations expose the body to radiation, and endoscopy of the bowel can lead to bleeding or (in rare cases) serious injuries. So it is important that both the benefits and harms of a screening test are assessed in studies before introducing it at a large scale. That way, researchers can find out whether the benefits of the screening test outweigh the risks. The statutory health insurance funds in Germany usually only pay for screening tests that have been proven to do more good than harm. In Germany, some screening tests are offered as what are called individual health care services (in German: Individuelle Gesundheitsleistungen, or IGeL for short). In most cases, there is not enough good research to be able to say whether the benefits of these screening tests outweigh the risks. People have to pay for IGeL screening tests themselves. The statutory health insurance funds provide information (in German) about certain IGeL services on the website of the Medical Review Board of the Statutory Health Insurance Funds (Medizinischer Dienst des Spitzenverbands der Krankenkassen, MDS). When might it be worth having a screening test? The World Health Organization (WHO) has defined criteria for evaluating population-wide screening tests, which may help you decide whether or not to have such a test. The WHO criteria include the following: Screening should be done only for diseases with serious consequences, so that screening tests could potentially have clear benefits to people’s health. The test must be reliable enough, and not harmful in itself. There must be an effective treatment for the disease when detected at an early stage – and there has to be scientific proof that that treatment is more effective when started before symptoms arise. Neutral information should be made available to the public, to help people decide for themselves whether or not to have a screening test. The WHO points out that detecting a disease early does not automatically have a benefit. If early diagnosis and treatment does not lead to an improved health outcome, detecting a disease earlier only makes people worry and have treatment for longer – unnecessarily, because they do not benefit from earlier treatment. When is screening not beneficial? Let us take the following (imaginary) example, which was developed by the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin. The diagram below shows two groups of people who all died of cancer at the age of 70 – regardless of whether or not they had done screening tests. In the group that did not have screening, the cancer was detected at the age of 67, three years before their death. In the group that had screening, on the other hand, the cancer was already detected at the age of 60. If you only look at the number of people who were alive five years after their cancer was diagnosed, screening seems to be highly effective. In reality, however, all of the people died at the age of 70 – with or without screening. So having a screening test did not make them live longer, they just learned that they had cancer earlier. This means that it increased the time they spent living as cancer patients by several years. Illustration: Survival rate without screening Illustration: Survival rate with screening If the screening tests had been effective, the people who had screening would have lived longer, so they would have died when they were older than 70, or their cause of death would have been something other than the disease that was detected through screening. Apart from that, screening might also have other benefits, such as an improvement in quality of life. The important thing is that screening should have benefits that outweigh the risks. How are the benefits of screening tests assessed? Researchers use different scientific methods to evaluate screening tests. For example, they do studies to find out how reliable the test is, whether a patient benefits from starting treatment earlier rather than later, which groups of people benefit from early diagnosis and treatment, and how the benefits compare to the risks. Reliability of the screening Screening usually consists of two steps. The aim of the first step is to look for signs of the disease in question. The results of a screening test are considered to be “positive” if signs of the disease are found, and ”negative” if no signs of the disease are found. The second step involves doing further tests to enable a more accurate diagnosis. But this is only done if the first test reveals abnormal findings – in other words, if the result is positive. Caution: The terms “positive” and “negative” can be very confusing when it comes to screening, since their meaning is completely different from what we associate with them. You would not be too happy about a “positive” screening result, because this means abnormal findings. A “negative” result is good news: there were no abnormal findings. The ideal screening: reliable and precise If there were a perfect screening program, all participants would get a correct and reliable result in the first test. This means that: All of the people who have a positive test result really would be ill (this is called a “true positive” result). There would be no positive test results in people who are not ill (no “false positive” results). All of the people who have a negative test result would not be ill (they would have a “true negative” result). People who are ill would not have a negative test result (there would not be any “false negative” results). | |||
"All those that complain about free prescriptions in Scotland do you hand money over then ? Or do you accept the free prescriptions ? Bit double standards I don't get any free prescriptions. Now what would you prefer, quicker cancer treatment for all (and more lives saved) or free prescriptions for all? Both Do you expect the elderly to pay for prescriptions or the people with illness through no fault of their own ? You lot sound like Tory lovers " Under the old system pensioners Not working Kids did not pay for prescriptions! !! So that arguement is good. Kinky try and concentrate a small charge would cut out waste and can be REINVESTED. Previous posters wrote about ozmramapole. I work with a guy who has nothing wrong with him but he drinks voldka. That gives time heartburn so he gets his free prescription to keep himself drinking. There has to be a new realisime to help the NHS so the money is spent more wisely. | |||
"All those that complain about free prescriptions in Scotland do you hand money over then ? Or do you accept the free prescriptions ? Bit double standards I don't get any free prescriptions. Now what would you prefer, quicker cancer treatment for all (and more lives saved) or free prescriptions for all? Both Do you expect the elderly to pay for prescriptions or the people with illness through no fault of their own ? You lot sound like Tory lovers The elderly were one group, along with many others, who never paid for prescriptions and wouldn't if we reverted back to the old system. So try again...what would you prefer, quicker cancer treatment for all (and more lives saved) or free prescriptions for all? Again this time i will shout it " BOTH" got it yet ? I noticed you left the people that have illness which are no fault if their own do you want them to pay prescriptions ?" Yes yes yes | |||
"But your policy won't work either! Reverting to paying for prescriptions will not fund cancer care. It does if you direct the money saved from the additional 'free prescriptions's and divert it to cancer care instead. If you have figures, rather than a vague claim, showing that couldn't be done then the floor is all yours. Go look yourself. It's a bit self-evident anyway! From reading your previous posts it seems this is a theme of yours. You make a claim and then when you can't back it up you tell others to look for it themselves. no....I'm on my phone not a computer so not possible to look up. Anyway, if anyone has an us sue, it's up to them to look it up- but look....you've done it. Others have mentioned the issues at the time in Scotland anyway I'm afraid if it was self evident to you then you may want to review your thought process." It's self-evident that prescription costs would not fund cancer care. It's a drop in the ocean. And should we forget about dementia, mental health, addictions, which are hugely LESS funded than cancer care??? Maybe it should go to the less well funded areas? | |||
"But your policy won't work either! Reverting to paying for prescriptions will not fund cancer care. It does if you direct the money saved from the additional 'free prescriptions's and divert it to cancer care instead. If you have figures, rather than a vague claim, showing that couldn't be done then the floor is all yours. Go look yourself. It's a bit self-evident anyway! From reading your previous posts it seems this is a theme of yours. You make a claim and then when you can't back it up you tell others to look for it themselves. no....I'm on my phone not a computer so not possible to look up. Anyway, if anyone has an us sue, it's up to them to look it up- but look....you've done it. Others have mentioned the issues at the time in Scotland anyway I'm afraid if it was self evident to you then you may want to review your thought process. It's self-evident that prescription costs would not fund cancer care. It's a drop in the ocean. And should we forget about dementia, mental health, addictions, which are hugely LESS funded than cancer care??? Maybe it should go to the less well funded areas?" You were claiming the costs of administering free prescriptions was more than the cost of actually providing them, I've shown that wasn't true. With regards to cancer care I am saying that I would use the £100m or so savings and target it at improving the initial treatement time for cancer, given the performance is getting worse and worse. If you believe it should go elsewhere then fine, but the point still stands that it could be put to better use than free prescriptions. This is yet again another situation where SNP supporters get themselves into a weird spot. Because you feel you have to agree with the free prescriptions policy you're now effectively dismissing the idea of extra money for cancer care because 'it's a drop in the ocean'. That's a bizarre view. Imagine the outcry if Theresa May said she had £100m to go towards cancer care in Scotland but wouldn't bother as it was a drop in the ocean. Nationalists would go mental over it. | |||
| |||
| |||
