If I need blood work my doctors office can schedule an appointment with a nurse there at my convenience. If I need an MRI or CAT scan they can schedule it within 24 hours at my convenience.
They know here that I have a choice of where I take my business. They let me know they appreciate it.
With the NHS you have no choice, are at their mercy and they love it. The NHS isn't designed for you, but for the folks who work for it. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as you understand it.
Quite. Pretty much everyone with experience of other health systems can see this. No-one else in the world has an NHS like the UK does. As you say the key is that those providing the service are competing for the custom of the patient. Appointments happen in hours rather than weeks and the medical and non-medical staff make sure to fit you in and treat you like you're paying their wages.
The NHS that gives you an appointment for four weeks in Wednesday at 12:30 is really not fit for purpose.
My father recently had a small operation under BUPA in the UK. On a Saturday morning. Saturday is their busiest day because their patients want to be back at work on Monday.
And because the surgeons and anaesthetists are working for the NHS during the week.
I'm sure that's some of it yes. Also a big part of what's not being said in relation to the doctors' dispute. They don't want to work weekends because they have other work to do somewhere else.
Under the current system only the rich get to have treatment at their convenience. Wouldn't it be better if everyone had the choice?
They do - it's called insurance.
In the UK only something like 10% have private insurance. The rest rely totally on the NHS. That 10% is also skewed towards the middle aged and generally well.
Well you don't sell insurance to people likely to make claims do you?
If I need blood work my doctors office can schedule an appointment with a nurse there at my convenience. If I need an MRI or CAT scan they can schedule it within 24 hours at my convenience.
They know here that I have a choice of where I take my business. They let me know they appreciate it.
With the NHS you have no choice, are at their mercy and they love it. The NHS isn't designed for you, but for the folks who work for it. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as you understand it.
Quite. Pretty much everyone with experience of other health systems can see this. No-one else in the world has an NHS like the UK does. As you say the key is that those providing the service are competing for the custom of the patient. Appointments happen in hours rather than weeks and the medical and non-medical staff make sure to fit you in and treat you like you're paying their wages.
The NHS that gives you an appointment for four weeks in Wednesday at 12:30 is really not fit for purpose.
My father recently had a small operation under BUPA in the UK. On a Saturday morning. Saturday is their busiest day because their patients want to be back at work on Monday.
And because the surgeons and anaesthetists are working for the NHS during the week.
I'm sure that's some of it yes. Also a big part of what's not being said in relation to the doctors' dispute. They don't want to work weekends because they have other work to do somewhere else.
Under the current system only the rich get to have treatment at their convenience. Wouldn't it be better if everyone had the choice?
They do - it's called insurance.
In the UK only something like 10% have private insurance. The rest rely totally on the NHS. That 10% is also skewed towards the middle aged and generally well.
I have private insurance through my work, I think !
If I need blood work my doctors office can schedule an appointment with a nurse there at my convenience. If I need an MRI or CAT scan they can schedule it within 24 hours at my convenience.
They know here that I have a choice of where I take my business. They let me know they appreciate it.
With the NHS you have no choice, are at their mercy and they love it. The NHS isn't designed for you, but for the folks who work for it. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as you understand it.
Quite. Pretty much everyone with experience of other health systems can see this. No-one else in the world has an NHS like the UK does. As you say the key is that those providing the service are competing for the custom of the patient. Appointments happen in hours rather than weeks and the medical and non-medical staff make sure to fit you in and treat you like you're paying their wages.
The NHS that gives you an appointment for four weeks in Wednesday at 12:30 is really not fit for purpose.
My father recently had a small operation under BUPA in the UK. On a Saturday morning. Saturday is their busiest day because their patients want to be back at work on Monday.
And because the surgeons and anaesthetists are working for the NHS during the week.
I'm sure that's some of it yes. Also a big part of what's not being said in relation to the doctors' dispute. They don't want to work weekends because they have other work to do somewhere else.
Under the current system only the rich get to have treatment at their convenience. Wouldn't it be better if everyone had the choice?
They do - it's called insurance.
In the UK only something like 10% have private insurance. The rest rely totally on the NHS. That 10% is also skewed towards the middle aged and generally well.
It's a free market and personal choice, exactly as it should be.
If I need blood work my doctors office can schedule an appointment with a nurse there at my convenience. If I need an MRI or CAT scan they can schedule it within 24 hours at my convenience.
They know here that I have a choice of where I take my business. They let me know they appreciate it.
With the NHS you have no choice, are at their mercy and they love it. The NHS isn't designed for you, but for the folks who work for it. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as you understand it.
Quite. Pretty much everyone with experience of other health systems can see this. No-one else in the world has an NHS like the UK does. As you say the key is that those providing the service are competing for the custom of the patient. Appointments happen in hours rather than weeks and the medical and non-medical staff make sure to fit you in and treat you like you're paying their wages.
The NHS that gives you an appointment for four weeks in Wednesday at 12:30 is really not fit for purpose.
My father recently had a small operation under BUPA in the UK. On a Saturday morning. Saturday is their busiest day because their patients want to be back at work on Monday.
And because the surgeons and anaesthetists are working for the NHS during the week.
I'm sure that's some of it yes. Also a big part of what's not being said in relation to the doctors' dispute. They don't want to work weekends because they have other work to do somewhere else.
Under the current system only the rich get to have treatment at their convenience. Wouldn't it be better if everyone had the choice?
They do - it's called insurance.
In the UK only something like 10% have private insurance. The rest rely totally on the NHS. That 10% is also skewed towards the middle aged and generally well.
Well you don't sell insurance to people likely to make claims do you?
That's not worthy of further comment. Do you drive? Do you own a home?
You are pretty touchy - men can be like that. However, merely suggesting that the two most electorally successful politicans (since Anthony Blair) in recent UK history know more about Scottish opinion than you do is hardly a grievous insult - just a fact!
I don't hate Cameron at all, at times he can be witty and he appears to be a devoted family man, when his son died he conducted himself with great dignity. What I find peculiar is the sycophantic worship by grown men of a man who has achieved vey little. He's quite good at winning elections, albeit in very favourable circumstances, but he is a complete jelly fish.
If I need blood work my doctors office can schedule an appointment with a nurse there at my convenience. If I need an MRI or CAT scan they can schedule it within 24 hours at my convenience.
They know here that I have a choice of where I take my business. They let me know they appreciate it.
With the NHS you have no choice, are at their mercy and they love it. The NHS isn't designed for you, but for the folks who work for it. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as you understand it.
Quite. Pretty much everyone with experience of other health systems can see this. No-one else in the world has an NHS like the UK does. As you say the key is that those providing the service are competing for the custom of the patient. Appointments happen in hours rather than weeks and the medical and non-medical staff make sure to fit you in and treat you like you're paying their wages.
The NHS that gives you an appointment for four weeks in Wednesday at 12:30 is really not fit for purpose.
My father recently had a small operation under BUPA in the UK. On a Saturday morning. Saturday is their busiest day because their patients want to be back at work on Monday.
And because the surgeons and anaesthetists are working for the NHS during the week.
I'm sure that's some of it yes. Also a big part of what's not being said in relation to the doctors' dispute. They don't want to work weekends because they have other work to do somewhere else.
Under the current system only the rich get to have treatment at their convenience. Wouldn't it be better if everyone had the choice?
They do - it's called insurance.
Are you saying that those who opt out can get money back from their taxes to pay for private care? currently if you opt out you have to pay twice.
You are pretty touchy - men can be like that. However, merely suggesting that the two most electorally successful politicans (since Anthony Blair) in recent UK history know more about Scottish opinion than you do is hardly a grievous insult - just a fact!
So how many Tunnock's cakes have you smashed with a hammer today?
If I need blood work my doctors office can schedule an appointment with a nurse there at my convenience. If I need an MRI or CAT scan they can schedule it within 24 hours at my convenience.
They know here that I have a choice of where I take my business. They let me know they appreciate it.
With the NHS you have no choice, are at their mercy and they love it. The NHS isn't designed for you, but for the folks who work for it. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as you understand it.
Quite. Pretty much everyone with experience of other health systems can see this. No-one else in the world has an NHS like the UK does. As you say the key is that those providing the service are competing for the custom of the patient. Appointments happen in hours rather than weeks and the medical and non-medical staff make sure to fit you in and treat you like you're paying their wages.
The NHS that gives you an appointment for four weeks in Wednesday at 12:30 is really not fit for purpose.
My father recently had a small operation under BUPA in the UK. On a Saturday morning. Saturday is their busiest day because their patients want to be back at work on Monday.
And because the surgeons and anaesthetists are working for the NHS during the week.
I'm sure that's some of it yes. Also a big part of what's not being said in relation to the doctors' dispute. They don't want to work weekends because they have other work to do somewhere else.
Under the current system only the rich get to have treatment at their convenience. Wouldn't it be better if everyone had the choice?
They do - it's called insurance.
In the UK only something like 10% have private insurance. The rest rely totally on the NHS. That 10% is also skewed towards the middle aged and generally well.
Well you don't sell insurance to people likely to make claims do you?
Here in Spain private health insurance is about 40% cheaper than in the UK and works very well. Of course the big problem relates to the non-cover for existing conditions.
Quite. Pretty much everyone with experience of other health systems can see this. No-one else in the world has an NHS like the UK does. As you say the key is that those providing the service are competing for the custom of the patient. Appointments happen in hours rather than weeks and the medical and non-medical staff make sure to fit you in and treat you like you're paying their wages.
The NHS that gives you an appointment for four weeks in Wednesday at 12:30 is really not fit for purpose.
My father recently had a small operation under BUPA in the UK. On a Saturday morning. Saturday is their busiest day because their patients want to be back at work on Monday.
And because the surgeons and anaesthetists are working for the NHS during the week.
I'm sure that's some of it yes. Also a big part of what's not being said in relation to the doctors' dispute. They don't want to work weekends because they have other work to do somewhere else.
Under the current system only the rich get to have treatment at their convenience. Wouldn't it be better if everyone had the choice?
They do - it's called insurance.
In the UK only something like 10% have private insurance. The rest rely totally on the NHS. That 10% is also skewed towards the middle aged and generally well.
I have private insurance through my work, I think !
Yes, most that do have insurance have it through work.
Companies see the benefits of eg having employees go for appointments on Saturdays, or not being off sick for weeks on end waiting for surgery.
There is a private market for insurance, a lot is aimed at the baby boomers who retired at 55 and expect to be fit and health for decades yet enjoyed private health when they were working. Obviously the cost of this goes up substantially every year with age.
If I need blood work my doctors office can schedule an appointment with a nurse there at my convenience. If I need an MRI or CAT scan they can schedule it within 24 hours at my convenience.
They know here that I have a choice of where I take my business. They let me know they appreciate it.
With the NHS you have no choice, are at their mercy and they love it. The NHS isn't designed for you, but for the folks who work for it. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as you understand it.
Quite. Pretty much everyone with experience of other health systems can see this. No-one else in the world has an NHS like the UK does. As you say the key is that those providing the service are competing for the custom of the patient. Appointments happen in hours rather than weeks and the medical and non-medical staff make sure to fit you in and treat you like you're paying their wages.
The NHS that gives you an appointment for four weeks in Wednesday at 12:30 is really not fit for purpose.
My father recently had a small operation under BUPA in the UK. On a Saturday morning. Saturday is their busiest day because their patients want to be back at work on Monday.
And because the surgeons and anaesthetists are working for the NHS during the week.
I'm sure that's some of it yes. Also a big part of what's not being said in relation to the doctors' dispute. They don't want to work weekends because they have other work to do somewhere else.
Under the current system only the rich get to have treatment at their convenience. Wouldn't it be better if everyone had the choice?
They do - it's called insurance.
Are you saying that those who opt out can get money back from their taxes to pay for private care? currently if you opt out you have to pay twice.
I'm saying if you want health insurance pay for it. Like car or home insurance.
@Tim_B the UK attitude to insurance in general is odd. A lot of idiots didn't even have flood insurance but it seems that governments, councils and public opinion in general is sympathetic to this stunning negligence and we are happy to give flood victims free money from our taxes. Bizarre
We have a society where people are relaxed with the obvious fact that rich people can live in the best houses, drive the best cars, eat in the best restaurants, and most people even don't mind that much that they can send their children to the best schools. But unless everyone can have the best medical care on demand, all hell breaks loose and we come over all Marxist.
If the NHS is truly 24/7 - as the doctors were recently arguing - why is there such a concept as 'out of hours'?
Unless you expect dermatology outpatients to run at 3am, there will always be out of hours periods. The local McDonalds is 24x7 but you can't buy a double bacon and egg McMuffin after 10.30am. (One of the doctors' complaints about Hunt is that he appears to have given no real thought to what he actually wants.)
If I need to go in for a scan or a blood test, I expect to be able to schedule an appointment at a time convenient to me rather than to the provider. I am their customer. If I have a job, that means either 7am or 8pm, such that I don't have to waste a day's productivity because of the appointment. Even better would be if I could go for the test at the hospital near my office at 8am or 6pm and they could send the results to my local GP. This is what a joined up NHS looks like.
Yes, that would be cool. No-one is saying the NHS (and medicine generally) cannot be improved but it needs planning not sloganising. It will also need more money to have phlebotomists in at 7am and 8pm (and even more for 3am). Politicians must decide whether we want to pay for it.
A good starting point might be to vary outpatient surgery times. So let's assume a single doctor conducting outpatient appointments currently works 9-5 M-F. Change his days off to Sun and Mon, have his Tuesday surgery from 6am-2pm and his Thursday from 2pm-9pm. Same number of hours worked but way more convenient for most of his patients, who could specify their preferred time when they book their appointment. It needs innovative thinking more than it needs extra money.
A surgery could close on Wednesdays, open on Saturday and still be able to offer a better service.
@Tim_B the UK attitude to insurance in general is odd. A lot of idiots didn't even have flood insurance but it seems that governments, councils and public opinion in general is sympathetic to this stunning negligence and we are happy to give flood victims free money from our taxes. Bizarre
We have a society where people are relaxed with the obvious fact that rich people can live in the best houses, drive the best cars, eat in the best restaurants, and most people even don't mind that much that they can send their children to the best schools. But unless everyone can have the best medical care on demand, all hell breaks loose and we come over all Marxist.
unless everyone can have the best medical care on demand, all hell breaks loose and we come over all Marxist.
I wouldn't even begin to describe the NHS as "the best medical care on demand" but I think you have it.
Flood insurance is a perfect example. If your house is on a flood plain and you are flooded out, that's a YOU problem if you don't have flood insurance, not the taxpayers.
I am increasingly convinced that Vote.Leave have got this right.
What we really wanted from Cameron's negotiation was some sort of Associate status or "country membership" which allowed the EZ to get on with their necessary integration but which did not affect us or our national interests. We are not going to get anything like that.
So we need associate status outside the EU but in the EEA where it really should be possible to have a mutually beneficial bespoke arrangement without making the constitutional arrangements of the EU even more Byzantine than they are at the moment. The logic for this is so compelling that I have not ruled out Cameron backing it.
From a Scottish point of view I really do not think that the change between full EU membership and EEA membership on these sort of terms is likely to be a game changer. It is possible the SNP will try to use it as the basis of a second referendum but that will only occur if they are absolutely confident of the result.
I do think our political class like their summits, Councils etc and strutting about and they will be reluctant to leave such a major stage. But remaining in an organisation which is going to become ever more integrated without an effective voice is a deeply unattractive option. Cameron has tried to find an internal solution that would work but there seems very little interest elsewhere in that. The conclusion is obvious really.
If the NHS is truly 24/7 - as the doctors were recently arguing - why is there such a concept as 'out of hours'?
Unless you expect dermatology outpatients to run at 3am, there will always be out of hours periods. The local McDonalds is 24x7 but you can't buy a double bacon and egg McMuffin after 10.30am. (One of the doctors' complaints about Hunt is that he appears to have given no real thought to what he actually wants.)
If I need to go in for a scan or a blood test, I expect to be able to schedule an appointment at a time convenient to me rather than to the provider. I am their customer. If I have a job, that means either 7am or 8pm, such that I don't have to waste a day's productivity because of the appointment. Even better would be if I could go for the test at the hospital near my office at 8am or 6pm and they could send the results to my local GP. This is what a joined up NHS looks like.
Yes, that would be cool. No-one is saying the NHS (and medicine generally) cannot be improved but it needs planning not sloganising. It will also need more money to have phlebotomists in at 7am and 8pm (and even more for 3am). Politicians must decide whether we want to pay for it.
A good starting point might be to vary outpatient surgery times. So let's assume a single doctor conducting outpatient appointments currently works 9-5 M-F. Change his days off to Sun and Mon, have his Tuesday surgery from 6am-2pm and his Thursday from 2pm-9pm. Same number of hours worked but way more convenient for most of his patients, who could specify their preferred time when they book their appointment. It needs innovative thinking more than it needs extra money.
Doctors (and nurses and porters and receptionists and so on). When I go to the doctor I need to take time off work. It's annoying. But when I look round my GP's or outpatients' waiting rooms, I reckon maybe 90 per cent aren't in that boat. I appreciate YMMV especially depending what clinic it is.
Mr. C, I believe there was a stopgap scheme between insurers and the government to provide flood coverage to everyone, but it lapsed a few years ago. I don't know if it's been resurrected or a replacement scheme conjured up. Some people do not have access, I believe, to flood insurance.
That said, some do, and didn't take it out, and that's their own damned fault.
The Cologne controversy shines a harsh light on the corrosion of the Enlightenment values Europe claims to hold to, on the decay of freedom and openness at the very heart of Europe; and we’re obsessing over the cultural habits of gangs of Arab blokes?
There were two alarming things about what happened in Cologne. The first was the attacks themselves, which, going by the women’s accounts, were awful. The second was the way the authorities, like rulers in some fictional dystopia, sought to cover up the nature of the attacks lest the revelations rattle the populace and provoke inter-communal tension. The police chief of Cologne consciously hid info about the backgrounds of the attackers. He told the media it was hard to know who carried out the assaults, a claim later contradicted by officers who were on the ground on the night in question, who say ‘the majority’ of those arrested had asylum-seeker IDs.
Like something out of Orwell, the police chief preferred to promote a lie of omission than allow the truth of the situation to start a discussion about Germany’s recent intake of immigrants from Syria and elsewhere. He appears to have tailored the facts, rewritten reality, in the name of keeping in check the passions of what he seems to view as the swirling German populace, better kept passive with untruths than made rowdy with uncomfortable facts.
If I need blood work my doctors office can schedule an appointment with a nurse there at my convenience. If I need an MRI or CAT scan they can schedule it within 24 hours at my convenience.
They know here that I have a choice of where I take my business. They let me know they appreciate it.
With the NHS you have no choice, are at their mercy and they love it. The NHS isn't designed for you, but for the folks who work for it. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as you understand it.
Quite. Pretty much everyone with experience of other health systems can see this. No-one else in the world has an NHS like the UK does. As you say the key is that those providing the service are competing for the custom of the patient. Appointments happen in hours rather than weeks and the medical and non-medical staff make sure to fit you in and treat you like you're paying their wages.
The NHS that gives you an appointment for four weeks in Wednesday at 12:30 is really not fit for purpose.
My father recently had a small operation under BUPA in the UK. On a Saturday morning. Saturday is their busiest day because their patients want to be back at work on Monday.
And because the surgeons and anaesthetists are working for the NHS during the week.
I'm sure that's some of it yes. Also a big part of what's not being said in relation to the doctors' dispute. They don't want to work weekends because they have other work to do somewhere else.
Under the current system only the rich get to have treatment at their convenience. Wouldn't it be better if everyone had the choice?
They do - it's called insurance.
Are you saying that those who opt out can get money back from their taxes to pay for private care? currently if you opt out you have to pay twice.
I would suggest that the biggest quick change the government could make to reduce NHS demand is to incentivise employers to provide private healthcare insurance to employees.
It could be offset against employer NI or Corp tax, providing they offer the insurance it to all staff (rather than just managers, say). Aim the relief squarely at the largest employers such as the supermarkets and hotel chains.
If the NHS is truly 24/7 - as the doctors were recently arguing - why is there such a concept as 'out of hours'?
Unless you expect dermatology outpatients to run at 3am, there will always be out of hours periods. The local McDonalds is 24x7 but you can't buy a double bacon and egg McMuffin after 10.30am. (One of the doctors' complaints about Hunt is that he appears to have given no real thought to what he actually wants.)
If I need to go in for a scan or a blood test, I expect to be able to schedule an appointment at a time convenient to me rather than to the provider. I am their customer. If I have a job, that means either 7am or 8pm, such that I don't have to waste a day's productivity because of the appointment. Even better would be if I could go for the test at the hospital near my office at 8am or 6pm and they could send the results to my local GP. This is what a joined up NHS looks like.
Yes, that would be cool. No-one is saying the NHS (and medicine generally) cannot be improved but it needs planning not sloganising. It will also need more money to have phlebotomists in at 7am and 8pm (and even more for 3am). Politicians must decide whether we want to pay for it.
But that can already happen. I recently had blood taken at 8.30 at the local medical centre. When I lived in London I am sure phlebotomy was open at 8.00 at Queen Mary's Roehampton. Again, my London GP offered 7.30am "commuter appointments". So it can be done if the will is there.
I am increasingly convinced that Vote.Leave have got this right.
What we really wanted from Cameron's negotiation was some sort of Associate status or "country membership" which allowed the EZ to get on with their necessary integration but which did not affect us or our national interests. We are not going to get anything like that.
So we need associate status outside the EU but in the EEA where it really should be possible to have a mutually beneficial bespoke arrangement without making the constitutional arrangements of the EU even more Byzantine than they are at the moment. The logic for this is so compelling that I have not ruled out Cameron backing it.
From a Scottish point of view I really do not think that the change between full EU membership and EEA membership on these sort of terms is likely to be a game changer. It is possible the SNP will try to use it as the basis of a second referendum but that will only occur if they are absolutely confident of the result.
I do think our political class like their summits, Councils etc and strutting about and they will be reluctant to leave such a major stage. But remaining in an organisation which is going to become ever more integrated without an effective voice is a deeply unattractive option. Cameron has tried to find an internal solution that would work but there seems very little interest elsewhere in that. The conclusion is obvious really.
The shade of Gough Whitlam is hoping that the concept of "country membership" takes off.
And because the surgeons and anaesthetists are working for the NHS during the week.
I'm sure that's some of it yes. Also a big part of what's not being said in relation to the doctors' dispute. They don't want to work weekends because they have other work to do somewhere else.
Under the current system only the rich get to have treatment at their convenience. Wouldn't it be better if everyone had the choice?
They do - it's called insurance.
In the UK only something like 10% have private insurance. The rest rely totally on the NHS. That 10% is also skewed towards the middle aged and generally well.
Well you don't sell insurance to people likely to make claims do you?
That's not worthy of further comment. Do you drive? Do you own a home?
It was supposed to be a joke but I do note that having said it was not worthy of further comment you could not resist.
In the US it is clearly different but in the UK it is true that medical insurance is sold to the "generally well". The only exception I can think of is the group policies that some employers have on a "key man" basis.
The Spanish (and American) basis is different because the risk is spread across much wider sections of the community in the same way as car insurance is. In health we do not have such a model here at the moment.
I had an emergency cancer op done privately..the NHS wait was too long and the condition was critical...My GP refused to supply me with prescriptions for the very necessary on going post op treatment..pain killers etc..nothing too costly...in spite of the fact I had saved the NHS the cost of my op..
I'm sure that's some of it yes. Also a big part of what's not being said in relation to the doctors' dispute. They don't want to work weekends because they have other work to do somewhere else.
Under the current system only the rich get to have treatment at their convenience. Wouldn't it be better if everyone had the choice?
What is really appalling is the length of time it takes to have something like a knee replacement. Not only could the customer be suffering from a very poor quality of life, but it may be preventing them from working. If this is the case, you need the operation next week, not in six months' time.
Jamie Ross A man on Scottish Resistance Facebook page has posted a video of himself smashing a packet of teacakes with a hammer https://t.co/bm9jQmg3YJ
If the NHS is truly 24/7 - as the doctors were recently arguing - why is there such a concept as 'out of hours'?
Unless you expect dermatology outpatients to run at 3am, there will always be out of hours periods. The local McDonalds is 24x7 but you can't buy a double bacon and egg McMuffin after 10.30am. (One of the doctors' complaints about Hunt is that he appears to have given no real thought to what he actually wants.)
If I need to go in for a scan or a blood test, I expect to be able to schedule an appointment at a time convenient to me rather than to the provider. I am their customer. If I have a job, that means either 7am or 8pm, such that I don't have to waste a day's productivity because of the appointment. Even better would be if I could go for the test at the hospital near my office at 8am or 6pm and they could send the results to my local GP. This is what a joined up NHS looks like.
Yes, that would be cool. No-one is saying the NHS (and medicine generally) cannot be improved but it needs planning not sloganising. It will also need more money to have phlebotomists in at 7am and 8pm (and even more for 3am). Politicians must decide whether we want to pay for it.
But that can already happen. I recently had blood taken at 8.30 at the local medical centre. When I lived in London I am sure phlebotomy was open at 8.00 at Queen Mary's Roehampton. Again, my London GP offered 7.30am "commuter appointments". So it can be done if the will is there.
Yes, a lot of the NHS is 24x7 and a lot more is open on extended hours. No-one is arguing about the principle but it's the details that matter. Hunt seems to have pointlessly antagonised a workforce that largely agreed with him.
If the NHS is truly 24/7 - as the doctors were recently arguing - why is there such a concept as 'out of hours'?
Unless you expect dermatology outpatients to run at 3am, there will always be out of hours periods. The local McDonalds is 24x7 but you can't buy a double bacon and egg McMuffin after 10.30am. (One of the doctors' complaints about Hunt is that he appears to have given no real thought to what he actually wants.)
If I need to go in for a scan or a blood test, I expect to be able to schedule an appointment at a time convenient to me rather than to the provider. I am their customer. If I have a job, that means either 7am or 8pm, such that I don't have to waste a day's productivity because of the appointment. Even better would be if I could go for the test at the hospital near my office at 8am or 6pm and they could send the results to my local GP. This is what a joined up NHS looks like.
Yes, that would be cool. No-one is saying the NHS (and medicine generally) cannot be improved but it needs planning not sloganising. It will also need more money to have phlebotomists in at 7am and 8pm (and even more for 3am). Politicians must decide whether we want to pay for it.
But that can already happen. I recently had blood taken at 8.30 at the local medical centre. When I lived in London I am sure phlebotomy was open at 8.00 at Queen Mary's Roehampton. Again, my London GP offered 7.30am "commuter appointments". So it can be done if the will is there.
Let the private sector step up when the NHS won't. The can provide blood work and other stuff. It'll cost you convenience money but that's fine.
You are pretty touchy - men can be like that. However, merely suggesting that the two most electorally successful politicans (since Anthony Blair) in recent UK history know more about Scottish opinion than you do is hardly a grievous insult - just a fact!
Not touchy at all, you were the one who posted a capitalised rant saying I had a death wish and didn't know what I was talking about.
@Tim_B the UK attitude to insurance in general is odd. A lot of idiots didn't even have flood insurance but it seems that governments, councils and public opinion in general is sympathetic to this stunning negligence and we are happy to give flood victims free money from our taxes. Bizarre
We have a society where people are relaxed with the obvious fact that rich people can live in the best houses, drive the best cars, eat in the best restaurants, and most people even don't mind that much that they can send their children to the best schools. But unless everyone can have the best medical care on demand, all hell breaks loose and we come over all Marxist.
unless everyone can have the best medical care on demand, all hell breaks loose and we come over all Marxist.
I wouldn't even begin to describe the NHS as "the best medical care on demand" but I think you have it.
Flood insurance is a perfect example. If your house is on a flood plain and you are flooded out, that's a YOU problem if you don't have flood insurance, not the taxpayers.
The sad truth is that most people wouldn't know what a flood plain is. One of the first things I learned at geography in primary school was flood plains and coal mines. True, education is not what it was when I was a nipper, even when the best teachers were in the forces. Well Mines have gone to that great coal-yard in the sky, but flood plains are forever.
And because the surgeons and anaesthetists are working for the NHS during the week.
I'm sure that's some of it yes. Also a big part of what's not being said in relation to the doctors' dispute. They don't want to work weekends because they have other work to do somewhere else.
Under the current system only the rich get to have treatment at their convenience. Wouldn't it be better if everyone had the choice?
They do - it's called insurance.
In the UK only something like 10% have private insurance. The rest rely totally on the NHS. That 10% is also skewed towards the middle aged and generally well.
Well you don't sell insurance to people likely to make claims do you?
That's not worthy of further comment. Do you drive? Do you own a home?
It was supposed to be a joke but I do note that having said it was not worthy of further comment you could not resist.
In the US it is clearly different but in the UK it is true that medical insurance is sold to the "generally well". The only exception I can think of is the group policies that some employers have on a "key man" basis.
The Spanish (and American) basis is different because the risk is spread across much wider sections of the community in the same way as car insurance is. In health we do not have such a model here at the moment.
If it's meant to be a joke put a smiley on it! I'll get it
I had an emergency cancer op done privately..the NHS wait was too long and the condition was critical...My GP refused to supply me with prescriptions for the very necessary on going post op treatment..pain killers etc..nothing too costly...in spite of the fact I had saved the NHS the cost of my op..
Doctors imo seem too reluctant to hand out painkillers. I can only imagine they are afraid we'll be flogging the pills in nightclubs come Friday night.
@Tim_B the UK attitude to insurance in general is odd. A lot of idiots didn't even have flood insurance but it seems that governments, councils and public opinion in general is sympathetic to this stunning negligence and we are happy to give flood victims free money from our taxes. Bizarre
We have a society where people are relaxed with the obvious fact that rich people can live in the best houses, drive the best cars, eat in the best restaurants, and most people even don't mind that much that they can send their children to the best schools. But unless everyone can have the best medical care on demand, all hell breaks loose and we come over all Marxist.
unless everyone can have the best medical care on demand, all hell breaks loose and we come over all Marxist.
I wouldn't even begin to describe the NHS as "the best medical care on demand" but I think you have it.
Flood insurance is a perfect example. If your house is on a flood plain and you are flooded out, that's a YOU problem if you don't have flood insurance, not the taxpayers.
The sad truth is that most people wouldn't know what a flood plain is. One of the first things I learned at geography in primary school was flood plains and coal mines. True, education is not what it was when I was a nipper, even when the best teachers were in the forces. Well Mines have gone to that great coal-yard in the sky, but flood plains are forever.
Developers and planning departments ought to, though.
@Tim_B the UK attitude to insurance in general is odd. A lot of idiots didn't even have flood insurance but it seems that governments, councils and public opinion in general is sympathetic to this stunning negligence and we are happy to give flood victims free money from our taxes. Bizarre
We have a society where people are relaxed with the obvious fact that rich people can live in the best houses, drive the best cars, eat in the best restaurants, and most people even don't mind that much that they can send their children to the best schools. But unless everyone can have the best medical care on demand, all hell breaks loose and we come over all Marxist.
unless everyone can have the best medical care on demand, all hell breaks loose and we come over all Marxist.
I wouldn't even begin to describe the NHS as "the best medical care on demand" but I think you have it.
Flood insurance is a perfect example. If your house is on a flood plain and you are flooded out, that's a YOU problem if you don't have flood insurance, not the taxpayers.
The sad truth is that most people wouldn't know what a flood plain is. One of the first things I learned at geography in primary school was flood plains and coal mines. True, education is not what it was when I was a nipper, even when the best teachers were in the forces. Well Mines have gone to that great coal-yard in the sky, but flood plains are forever.
But that's the owner's problem. not the taxpayer's. When you buy a house it's your responsibility to know this stuff and insure accordingly. It is not the government's responsibility to bail you out.
And because the surgeons and anaesthetists are working for the NHS during the week.
I'm sure that's some of it yes. Also a big part of what's not being said in relation to the doctors' dispute. They don't want to work weekends because they have other work to do somewhere else.
Under the current system only the rich get to have treatment at their convenience. Wouldn't it be better if everyone had the choice?
They do - it's called insurance.
In the UK only something like 10% have private insurance. The rest rely totally on the NHS. That 10% is also skewed towards the middle aged and generally well.
Well you don't sell insurance to people likely to make claims do you?
That's not worthy of further comment. Do you drive? Do you own a home?
It was supposed to be a joke but I do note that having said it was not worthy of further comment you could not resist.
In the US it is clearly different but in the UK it is true that medical insurance is sold to the "generally well". The only exception I can think of is the group policies that some employers have on a "key man" basis.
The Spanish (and American) basis is different because the risk is spread across much wider sections of the community in the same way as car insurance is. In health we do not have such a model here at the moment.
If it's meant to be a joke put a smiley on it! I'll get it
DJL..I had just had an 8 hour op..hardly be off to the nightclub..plus I was 65..I shouted at him and he reluctantly gave me what I wanted..some painkillers and an anti biotic..big deal..
I had an emergency cancer op done privately..the NHS wait was too long and the condition was critical...My GP refused to supply me with prescriptions for the very necessary on going post op treatment..pain killers etc..nothing too costly...in spite of the fact I had saved the NHS the cost of my op..
Doctors imo seem too reluctant to hand out painkillers. I can only imagine they are afraid we'll be flogging the pills in nightclubs come Friday night.
Antibiotics being on sale in the 7-11 when I went to Thailand about a decade ago was a tremendous convienience. I fear that alot of people would start taking them for cold and flu here though if they were on general sale !
DJL..I had just had an 8 hour op..hardly be off to the nightclub..plus I was 65..I shouted at him and he reluctantly gave me what I wanted..some painkillers and an anti biotic..big deal..
When my mum died of cancer she had enough liquid morphine in the house to meet demand in the whole of Glenrothes for a month. We took it all back to the chemist.
And because the surgeons and anaesthetists are working for the NHS during the week.
I'm sure that's some of it yes. Also a big part of what's not being said in relation to the doctors' dispute. They don't want to work weekends because they have other work to do somewhere else.
Under the current system only the rich get to have treatment at their convenience. Wouldn't it be better if everyone had the choice?
They do - it's called insurance.
In the UK only something like 10% have private insurance. The rest rely totally on the NHS. That 10% is also skewed towards the middle aged and generally well.
Well you don't sell insurance to people likely to make claims do you?
That's not worthy of further comment. Do you drive? Do you own a home?
It was supposed to be a joke but I do note that having said it was not worthy of further comment you could not resist.
In the US it is clearly different but in the UK it is true that medical insurance is sold to the "generally well". The only exception I can think of is the group policies that some employers have on a "key man" basis.
The Spanish (and American) basis is different because the risk is spread across much wider sections of the community in the same way as car insurance is. In health we do not have such a model here at the moment.
If it's meant to be a joke put a smiley on it! I'll get it
Clearly not one of my better efforts.
Look on the bright side - you're doing better than Rand Paul
@Tim_B the UK attitude to insurance in general is odd. A lot of idiots didn't even have flood insurance but it seems that governments, councils and public opinion in general is sympathetic to this stunning negligence and we are happy to give flood victims free money from our taxes. Bizarre
We have a society where people are relaxed with the obvious fact that rich people can live in the best houses, drive the best cars, eat in the best restaurants, and most people even don't mind that much that they can send their children to the best schools. But unless everyone can have the best medical care on demand, all hell breaks loose and we come over all Marxist.
unless everyone can have the best medical care on demand, all hell breaks loose and we come over all Marxist.
I wouldn't even begin to describe the NHS as "the best medical care on demand" but I think you have it.
Flood insurance is a perfect example. If your house is on a flood plain and you are flooded out, that's a YOU problem if you don't have flood insurance, not the taxpayers.
The sad truth is that most people wouldn't know what a flood plain is. One of the first things I learned at geography in primary school was flood plains and coal mines. True, education is not what it was when I was a nipper, even when the best teachers were in the forces. Well Mines have gone to that great coal-yard in the sky, but flood plains are forever.
But that's the owner's problem. not the taxpayer's. When you buy a house it's your responsibility to know this stuff and insure accordingly. It is not the government's responsibility to bail you out.
Oh, I agree with you 100%. I'm not saying house buyers shouldn't be aware. I'm just pointing out the general ignorance.
I had an emergency cancer op done privately..the NHS wait was too long and the condition was critical...My GP refused to supply me with prescriptions for the very necessary on going post op treatment..pain killers etc..nothing too costly...in spite of the fact I had saved the NHS the cost of my op..
Doctors imo seem too reluctant to hand out painkillers. I can only imagine they are afraid we'll be flogging the pills in nightclubs come Friday night.
Antibiotics being on sale in the 7-11 when I went to Thailand about a decade ago was a tremendous convienience. I fear that alot of people would start taking them for cold and flu here though if they were on general sale !
A terrible idea!
Antibiotic resistance is a major problem. GPs hand them out like Smarties, and farmers hugely overuse them in cattle feed. Both need to stop. Really really need to stop.
I don't hate Cameron at all, at times he can be witty and he appears to be a devoted family man, when his son died he conducted himself with great dignity. What I find peculiar is the sycophantic worship by grown men of a man who has achieved vey little. He's quite good at winning elections, albeit in very favourable circumstances, but he is a complete jelly fish.
At the very least he has given you the referendum you crave - a lot more than UKIP ever managed.
@Tim_B the UK attitude to insurance in general is odd. A lot of idiots didn't even have flood insurance but it seems that governments, councils and public opinion in general is sympathetic to this stunning negligence and we are happy to give flood victims free money from our taxes. Bizarre
We have a society where people are relaxed with the obvious fact that rich people can live in the best houses, drive the best cars, eat in the best restaurants, and most people even don't mind that much that they can send their children to the best schools. But unless everyone can have the best medical care on demand, all hell breaks loose and we come over all Marxist.
unless everyone can have the best medical care on demand, all hell breaks loose and we come over all Marxist.
I wouldn't even begin to describe the NHS as "the best medical care on demand" but I think you have it.
Flood insurance is a perfect example. If your house is on a flood plain and you are flooded out, that's a YOU problem if you don't have flood insurance, not the taxpayers.
The sad truth is that most people wouldn't know what a flood plain is. One of the first things I learned at geography in primary school was flood plains and coal mines. True, education is not what it was when I was a nipper, even when the best teachers were in the forces. Well Mines have gone to that great coal-yard in the sky, but flood plains are forever.
Developers and planning departments ought to, though.
Yes they should. Blimey, I'm agreeing with everybody this morning. Time for a bracing walk.
I used to like Tunnocks tea cakes. I don't eat them now. Nothing to do with that old Tory Boyd Tunnock's politics just my wasteline.
However Salmond has no problem with Tunnocks. He gave them millions of free advertising at the Commonwealth Games opening ceremony. That perhaps wasn't his wisest commercial decision. He should have made canny old Boyd pay for it like all the sponsors did. However it shows that Salmond has a touch of class and a great sense of humour - something totally missing from many of his detractors and virtually all of the Scottish press corps.
Nor does Sturgeon have a problem with Tunnocks caramel wafers. If I remember correctly she served them at her wedding reception!
@Tim_B the UK attitude to insurance in general is odd. A lot of idiots didn't even have flood insurance but it seems that governments, councils and public opinion in general is sympathetic to this stunning negligence and we are happy to give flood victims free money from our taxes. Bizarre
We have a society where people are relaxed with the obvious fact that rich people can live in the best houses, drive the best cars, eat in the best restaurants, and most people even don't mind that much that they can send their children to the best schools. But unless everyone can have the best medical care on demand, all hell breaks loose and we come over all Marxist.
unless everyone can have the best medical care on demand, all hell breaks loose and we come over all Marxist.
I wouldn't even begin to describe the NHS as "the best medical care on demand" but I think you have it.
Flood insurance is a perfect example. If your house is on a flood plain and you are flooded out, that's a YOU problem if you don't have flood insurance, not the taxpayers.
The sad truth is that most people wouldn't know what a flood plain is. One of the first things I learned at geography in primary school was flood plains and coal mines. True, education is not what it was when I was a nipper, even when the best teachers were in the forces. Well Mines have gone to that great coal-yard in the sky, but flood plains are forever.
But that's the owner's problem. not the taxpayer's. When you buy a house it's your responsibility to know this stuff and insure accordingly. It is not the government's responsibility to bail you out.
Oh, I agree with you 100%. I'm not saying house buyers shouldn't be aware. I'm just pointing out the general ignorance.
Then we get into "the government should do something" syndrome. That way lies madness.
If I need blood work my doctors office can schedule an appointment with a nurse there at my convenience. If I need an MRI or CAT scan they can schedule it within 24 hours at my convenience.
They know here that I have a choice of where I take my business. They let me know they appreciate it.
With the NHS you have no choice, are at their mercy and they love it. The NHS isn't designed for you, but for the folks who work for it. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as you understand it.
Quite. Pretty much everyone with experience of other health systems can see this. No-one else in the world has an NHS like the UK does. As you say the key is that those providing the service are competing for the custom of the patient. Appointments happen in hours rather than weeks and the medical and non-medical staff make sure to fit you in and treat you like you're paying their wages.
The NHS that gives you an appointment for four weeks in Wednesday at 12:30 is really not fit for purpose.
My father recently had a small operation under BUPA in the UK. On a Saturday morning. Saturday is their busiest day because their patients want to be back at work on Monday.
And because the surgeons and anaesthetists are working for the NHS during the week.
I'm sure that's some of it yes. Also a big part of what's not being said in relation to the doctors' dispute. They don't want to work weekends because they have other work to do somewhere else.
Under the current system only the rich get to have treatment at their convenience. Wouldn't it be better if everyone had the choice?
They do - it's called insurance.
Are you saying that those who opt out can get money back from their taxes to pay for private care? currently if you opt out you have to pay twice.
I'm saying if you want health insurance pay for it. Like car or home insurance.
Not the same at all - with Health Insurance you have to pay twice - NHS + Private. On your logic if you opt to go private you should receive an NHS refund. Otherwise it is definitely not a free market.
@Tim_B the UK attitude to insurance in general is odd. A lot of idiots didn't even have flood insurance but it seems that governments, councils and public opinion in general is sympathetic to this stunning negligence and we are happy to give flood victims free money from our taxes. Bizarre
We have a society where people are relaxed with the obvious fact that rich people can live in the best houses, drive the best cars, eat in the best restaurants, and most people even don't mind that much that they can send their children to the best schools. But unless everyone can have the best medical care on demand, all hell breaks loose and we come over all Marxist.
unless everyone can have the best medical care on demand, all hell breaks loose and we come over all Marxist.
I wouldn't even begin to describe the NHS as "the best medical care on demand" but I think you have it.
Flood insurance is a perfect example. If your house is on a flood plain and you are flooded out, that's a YOU problem if you don't have flood insurance, not the taxpayers.
The sad truth is that most people wouldn't know what a flood plain is. One of the first things I learned at geography in primary school was flood plains and coal mines. True, education is not what it was when I was a nipper, even when the best teachers were in the forces. Well Mines have gone to that great coal-yard in the sky, but flood plains are forever.
Developers and planning departments ought to, though.
Planning departments do make some strange decisions. The magical influence of the brown envelope stuffed with cash lives on.
If the NHS is truly 24/7 - as the doctors were recently arguing - why is there such a concept as 'out of hours'?
Unless you expect dermatology outpatients to run at 3am, t he actually wants.)
If I need to go in for a scan or a blood test, I expect to be able to schedule an appointment at a time convenient to me rather than to the provider. I am their customer. If I have a job, that means either 7am or 8pm, such that I don't have to waste a day's productivity because of the appointment. Even better would be if I could go for the test at the hospital near my office at 8am or 6pm and they could send the results to my local GP. This is what a joined up NHS looks like.
McDonald's here sells breakfast all day.
If I need blood work my doctors office can schedule an appointment with a nurse there at my convenience. If I need an MRI or CAT scan they can schedule it within 24 hours at my convenience.
They know here that I have a choice of where I take my business. They let me know they appreciate it.
With the NHS you have no choice, are at their mercy and they love it. The NHS isn't designed for you, but for the folks who work for it. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as you understand it.
Quite. Pretty much everyone with experience of other health systems can see this. No-one else
My father recently had a small operation under BUPA in the UK. On a Saturday morning. Saturday is their busiest day because their patients want to be back at work on Monday.
And because the surgeons and anaesthetists are working for the NHS during the week.
I'm sure that's some of it yes. Also a big part of what's not being said in relation to the doctors' dispute. They don't want to work weekends because they have other work to do somewhere else.
Under the current system only the rich get to have treatment at their convenience. Wouldn't it be better if everyone had the choice?
Junior doctors are not permitted private practice, and less than 1/3 of Consultants or GPs do any private practice at all.
Indeed for those of us who do it will be much easier getting clinic rooms during the week, when having days off midweek. It is very hard to get clinic rooms on Saturdays and evenings at present as they are booked solid.
Quite horrible for the victims of this test, but better alerted now that the drug in question is lethal. We don't want another Thalidomide foisted on the world.
I am increasingly convinced that Vote.Leave have got this right.
What we really wanted from Cameron's negotiation was some sort of Associate status or "country membership" which allowed the EZ to get on with their necessary integration but which did not affect us or our national interests. We are not going to get anything like that.
So we need associate status outside the EU but in the EEA where it really should be possible to have a mutually beneficial bespoke arrangement without making the constitutional arrangements of the EU even more Byzantine than they are at the moment. The logic for this is so compelling that I have not ruled out Cameron backing it.
From a Scottish point of view I really do not think that the change between full EU membership and EEA membership on these sort of terms is likely to be a game changer. It is possible the SNP will try to use it as the basis of a second referendum but that will only occur if they are absolutely confident of the result.
I do think our political class like their summits, Councils etc and strutting about and they will be reluctant to leave such a major stage. But remaining in an organisation which is going to become ever more integrated without an effective voice is a deeply unattractive option. Cameron has tried to find an internal solution that would work but there seems very little interest elsewhere in that. The conclusion is obvious really.
Hard to argue with any of that.
Vote Leave should subtly be making this case to the floaters without shouting it too loud from the rooftops lest the EU and the CBI try and pick it apart, and those expecting an instant step change in immigration policy become disillusioned.
bb63 I think winning elections can be quite an achievement..not many people can do that..how many have you won..
I'm sorry Mr Dodd but that is a ridiculous response. Cameron failed to win a majority against a man considered by Tories to be the worst ever PM.
You really don't understand elections do you? The electoral mountain to climb in 2010 was enormous and Cameron did enough to get Brown out. The fact that you don't get that is very revealing.
Quite. Pretty much everyone with experience of other health systems can see this. No-one else in the world has an NHS like the UK does. As you say the key is that those providing the service are competing for the custom of the patient. Appointments happen in hours rather than weeks and the medical and non-medical staff make sure to fit you in and treat you like you're paying their wages.
The NHS that gives you an appointment for four weeks in Wednesday at 12:30 is really not fit for purpose.
My father recently had a small operation under BUPA in the UK. On a Saturday morning. Saturday is their busiest day because their patients want to be back at work on Monday.
And because the surgeons and anaesthetists are working for the NHS during the week.
I'm sure that's some of it yes. Also a big part of what's not being said in relation to the doctors' dispute. They don't want to work weekends because they have other work to do somewhere else.
Under the current system only the rich get to have treatment at their convenience. Wouldn't it be better if everyone had the choice?
They do - it's called insurance.
Are you saying that those who opt out can get money back from their taxes to pay for private care? currently if you opt out you have to pay twice.
I'm saying if you want health insurance pay for it. Like car or home insurance.
Not the same at all - with Health Insurance you have to pay twice - NHS + Private. On your logic if you opt to go private you should receive an NHS refund. Otherwise it is definitely not a free market.
NHS - doctor appointments, prescriptions etc. Private insurance - better health care and private clinics for operations, care etc.
Come on, this is not difficult. If you want better care you should PAY for it. Yes, it costs you more out of pocket.
I am increasingly convinced that Vote.Leave have got this right.
What we really wanted from Cameron's negotiation was some sort of Associate status or "country membership" which allowed the EZ to get on with their necessary integration but which did not affect us or our national interests. We are not going to get anything like that.
So we need associate status outside the EU but in the EEA where it really should be possible to have a mutually beneficial bespoke arrangement without making the constitutional arrangements of the EU even more Byzantine than they are at the moment. The logic for this is so compelling that I have not ruled out Cameron backing it.
EEA membership wouldn't be a bad outcome for the UK but it's not on the ballot. I think that if Leave wins a proposal that we should remain within the EEA will be hugely controversial. It will be portrayed (by the obvious people) as an attempt to repudiate the referendum result and keep us kind-of-in-the-EU. I don't see where the leadership would come from to push it through. Not Cameron - he's gone. And his replacement will be forced to make pledges on exactly this point - that Leave really means leave. The euro-sceptic right will be watching like hawks for the first sign of The Great Betrayal.
bb63 I think winning elections can be quite an achievement..not many people can do that..how many have you won..
I'm sorry Mr Dodd but that is a ridiculous response. Cameron failed to win a majority against a man considered by Tories to be the worst ever PM.
You really don't understand elections do you? The electoral mountain to climb in 2010 was enormous and Cameron did enough to get Brown out. The fact that you don't get that is very revealing.
But he almost didn't. If he'd clocked just ten seats fewer a Lib/Lab coalition would have been viable and Cameron would have been out on his Nellie.
A majority was there for the taking but he had at least two people trying to run the campaign and the ghastly hybrid that he came up with lost that opportunity in January and February.
Quite. Pretty much everyone with experience of other health systems can see this. No-one else in the world has an NHS like the UK does. As you say the key is that those providing the service are competing for the custom of the patient. Appointments happen in hours rather than weeks and the medical and non-medical staff make sure to fit you in and treat you like you're paying their wages.
The NHS that gives you an appointment for four weeks in Wednesday at 12:30 is really not fit for purpose.
My father recently had a small operation under BUPA in the UK. On a Saturday morning. Saturday is their busiest day because their patients want to be back at work on Monday.
And because the surgeons and anaesthetists are working for the NHS during the week.
I'm sure that's some of it yes. Also a big part of what's not being said in relation to the doctors' dispute. They don't want to work weekends because they have other work to do somewhere else.
Under the current system only the rich get to have treatment at their convenience. Wouldn't it be better if everyone had the choice?
They do - it's called insurance.
Are you saying that those who opt out can get money back from their taxes to pay for private care? currently if you opt out you have to pay twice.
I'm saying if you want health insurance pay for it. Like car or home insurance.
Not the same at all - with Health Insurance you have to pay twice - NHS + Private. On your logic if you opt to go private you should receive an NHS refund. Otherwise it is definitely not a free market.
NHS - doctor appointments, prescriptions etc. Private insurance - better health care and private clinics for operations, care etc.
Come on, this is not difficult. If you want better care you should PAY for it. Yes, it costs you more out of pocket.
I pay for private insurance in Spain which covers everything - you can do the same in the UK. It is very expensive and yet you still have. to pay for the NHS even if all your medical cares are covered privately. How is that fair?
I used to like Tunnocks tea cakes. I don't eat them now. Nothing to do with that old Tory Boyd Tunnock's politics just my wasteline.
However Salmond has no problem with Tunnocks. He gave them millions of free advertising at the Commonwealth Games opening ceremony. That perhaps wasn't his wisest commercial decision. He should have made canny old Boyd pay for it like all the sponsors did. However it shows that Salmond has a touch of class and a great sense of humour - something totally missing from many of his detractors and virtually all of the Scottish press corps.
Nor does Sturgeon have a problem with Tunnocks caramel wafers. If I remember correctly she served them at her wedding reception!
Were you there then?
Was she in that seemingly forever red costume, even for her wedding?
bb63 I think winning elections can be quite an achievement..not many people can do that..how many have you won..
I'm sorry Mr Dodd but that is a ridiculous response. Cameron failed to win a majority against a man considered by Tories to be the worst ever PM.
You really don't understand elections do you? The electoral mountain to climb in 2010 was enormous and Cameron did enough to get Brown out. The fact that you don't get that is very revealing.
But he almost didn't. If he'd clocked just ten seats fewer a Lib/Lab coalition would have been viable and Cameron would have been out on his Nellie.
A majority was there for the taking but he had at least two people trying to run the campaign and the ghastly hybrid that he came up with lost that opportunity in January and February.
The first debate then compounded it.
A pointless argument given that he didn't get ten seats fewer.
If the UK votes to leave the EU, Scotland might well vote to leave the UK in reaction. However, given that some in Ireland are seriously pondering whether Ireland could stay in the EU if Britain leaves the EU, it would be odd for Scotland to go in the reverse direction given that its economy is even more closely tied to the UK's.
I think it is inevitable that Eire would follow a Brexit unless the EEA terms negotiated made no practical difference to them (so we stay in the VAT arrangements, for example). The same applies to Scotland. They could only afford to be in the EU when rUK wasn't if this made no difference at all to their access to the English market.
After all, we already have an obesity problem up here and we need to shift those teacakes!
EEA membership does not require remaining in any VAT arrangements. It is not part of the EEA agreement.
I had an emergency cancer op done privately..the NHS wait was too long and the condition was critical...My GP refused to supply me with prescriptions for the very necessary on going post op treatment..pain killers etc..nothing too costly...in spite of the fact I had saved the NHS the cost of my op..
Doctors imo seem too reluctant to hand out painkillers. I can only imagine they are afraid we'll be flogging the pills in nightclubs come Friday night.
Antibiotics being on sale in the 7-11 when I went to Thailand about a decade ago was a tremendous convienience. I fear that alot of people would start taking them for cold and flu here though if they were on general sale !
A terrible idea!
Antibiotic resistance is a major problem. GPs hand them out like Smarties, and farmers hugely overuse them in cattle feed. Both need to stop. Really really need to stop.
It was very convienient when you get a small, infected cut from diving and don't have to bother with the whole hassle of heading to the Docs to get antibiotics !
The issue as you point out is that 95% of people would take them when not neccesary. But if you have a brain and can tell a viral from a bacterial infection, it's handy.
Quite. Pretty much everyone with experience of other health systems can see this. No-one else in the world has an NHS like the UK does. As you say the key is that those providing the service are competing for the custom of the patient. Appointments happen in hours rather than weeks and the medical and non-medical staff make sure to fit you in and treat you like you're paying their wages.
And because the surgeons and anaesthetists are working for the NHS during the week.
I'm sure that's some of it yes. Also a big part of what's not being said in relation to the doctors' dispute. They don't want to work weekends because they have other work to do somewhere else.
Under the current system only the rich get to have treatment at their convenience. Wouldn't it be better if everyone had the choice?
They do - it's called insurance.
Are you saying that those who opt out can get money back from their taxes to pay for private care? currently if you opt out you have to pay twice.
I'm saying if you want health insurance pay for it. Like car or home insurance.
Not the same at all - with Health Insurance you have to pay twice - NHS + Private. On your logic if you opt to go private you should receive an NHS refund. Otherwise it is definitely not a free market.
NHS - doctor appointments, prescriptions etc. Private insurance - better health care and private clinics for operations, care etc.
Come on, this is not difficult. If you want better care you should PAY for it. Yes, it costs you more out of pocket.
I pay for private insurance in Spain which covers everything - you can do the same in the UK. It is very expensive and yet you still have. to pay for the NHS even if all your medical cares are covered privately. How is that fair?
It's not a question of 'fair'. It's a question of whether you think what you spend is worth the cost of benefits. That's a YOU problem.
I had an emergency cancer op done privately..the NHS wait was too long and the condition was critical...My GP refused to supply me with prescriptions for the very necessary on going post op treatment..pain killers etc..nothing too costly...in spite of the fact I had saved the NHS the cost of my op..
Doctors imo seem too reluctant to hand out painkillers. I can only imagine they are afraid we'll be flogging the pills in nightclubs come Friday night.
Antibiotics being on sale in the 7-11 when I went to Thailand about a decade ago was a tremendous convienience. I fear that alot of people would start taking them for cold and flu here though if they were on general sale !
A terrible idea!
Antibiotic resistance is a major problem. GPs hand them out like Smarties, and farmers hugely overuse them in cattle feed. Both need to stop. Really really need to stop.
It was very convienient when you get a small, infected cut from diving and don't have to bother with the whole hassle of heading to the Docs to get antibiotics !
The issue as you point out is that 95% of people would take them when not neccesary. But if you have a brain and can tell a viral from a bacterial infection, it's handy.
I see Michael Portillo on the previous thread said we wouldn't Leave even if we voted Leave. Whilst I don't literally agree with that i do agree that on a result like that we'd see prevarication and legal challenge.
It will be the Conservative backbenches that'd try to force the follow through.
Such a vote would mean Remain narrowly winning, but if a similar split were to occur but shade it for Leave then it would mean the end of the United Kingdom.
I don't agree. Show me the 2014 Unionists who would now vote to break up the UK just because it has voted in aggregate to leave the EU?
This argument most appeals to (and is made the most by) the nationalists who wish to use it as a casus belli for a second referendum.
Still, it'd answer the currency question. Hello, Euro.
Even as someone who is in favour of Scotland being independent, I imply don't see there is anyway on earth that they will vote to Leave now compared to 2013 when you look at the economic situation for the country. And that is, I believe, the case even if the UK votes to leave the EU.
The SNP can call a new referendum if we get a Leave vote. Unfortunately they will lose, probably by a bigger margin than last time.
'What we really wanted from Cameron's negotiation was some sort of Associate status or "country membership" which allowed the EZ to get on with their necessary integration but which did not affect us or our national interests. We are not going to get anything like that.'
Yes - I am glad to see the light bulb has finally switched on
But note that Cameron may well claim he has gained 'Associate membership' and it may even be called that. But it won't be any different from our current terms of membership.
If the UK votes to leave the EU, Scotland might well vote to leave the UK in reaction. However, given that some in Ireland are seriously pondering whether Ireland could stay in the EU if Britain leaves the EU, it would be odd for Scotland to go in the reverse direction given that its economy is even more closely tied to the UK's.
I think it is inevitable that Eire would follow a Brexit unless the EEA terms negotiated made no practical difference to them (so we stay in the VAT arrangements, for example). The same applies to Scotland. They could only afford to be in the EU when rUK wasn't if this made no difference at all to their access to the English market.
After all, we already have an obesity problem up here and we need to shift those teacakes!
EEA membership does not require remaining in any VAT arrangements. It is not part of the EEA agreement.
It doesn't have to but it is something we would want to look at. Frankly, if we are not part of such an arrangement I fear the boundary between NI and Eire will require more monitoring than at the peak of the troubles.
As well as the opportunities for fraud the paperwork that would be required in relation to imports and exports would be a serious inconvenience.
Good morning all. I don't understand Felix's logic (apart from the natural eye roll due an adult who thinks things should be 'fair').
We put the kids through private school. Presumably, our taxes were also covering education budget. As our decision was a voluntary one, we had no room to complain. Similarly, my BUPA cover is elective; no one made me take it out.
Being a civilian requires us to be civil; this isn't just a matter of having good manners and consideration for others, it also requires us to contribute to things that may not be directly of benefit to us personally.
I would be totally behind charging people who miss NHS appointments, or who waste Doctor's time (I'm also aware of all the edge and corner cases that probably make that administratively impractical).
Interesting to see general agreement this morning even among the Leave ranks that Leave should move on from immigration. Is isam around any more? I know he felt the opposite.
I don't think that's right. The biggest fear about the current EU is that quite a few of Merkel's million(s) will move here. Staying in the EU outsources our immigration policy to the German leader's historical brainfart.
Here in Spain private health insurance is about 40% cheaper than in the UK and works very well. Of course the big problem relates to the non-cover for existing conditions.
The Spanish Health system seems to work very well and provide a very good standard of care. One of my old muckers came back to the UK when he first became ill and was told by the NHS that his condition was such that he must expect to die soon, there was nothing they could do beyond palliative care. He went back to Spain, where the quacks took a different attitude, provided treatment and he lived for another 15 years.
Someone suggested on here a while back that OAPs living in Spain would return to the UK for the NHS - only if they are fecking daft.
I am increasingly convinced that Vote.Leave have got this right.
What we really wanted from Cameron's negotiation was some sort of Associate status or "country membership" which allowed the EZ to get on with their necessary integration but which did not affect us or our national interests. We are not going to get anything like that.
So we need associate status outside the EU but in the EEA where it really should be possible to have a mutually beneficial bespoke arrangement without making the constitutional arrangements of the EU even more Byzantine than they are at the moment. The logic for this is so compelling that I have not ruled out Cameron backing it.
From a Scottish point of view I really do not think that the change between full EU membership and EEA membership on these sort of terms is likely to be a game changer. It is possible the SNP will try to use it as the basis of a second referendum but that will only occur if they are absolutely confident of the result.
I do think our political class like their summits, Councils etc and strutting about and they will be reluctant to leave such a major stage. But remaining in an organisation which is going to become ever more integrated without an effective voice is a deeply unattractive option. Cameron has tried to find an internal solution that would work but there seems very little interest elsewhere in that. The conclusion is obvious really.
Hard to argue with any of that.
Vote Leave should subtly be making this case to the floaters without shouting it too loud from the rooftops lest the EU and the CBI try and pick it apart, and those expecting an instant step change in immigration policy become disillusioned.
I think the way to convince the anti-immigration types is that within the EEA we can add conditionality and other clauses to come and work in the UK. Language tests, self-sufficiency rules etc... that we are currently unable to do within the EU. It won't be a big change, but it gives us a small amount of control where we currently have none.
bb63 I think winning elections can be quite an achievement..not many people can do that..how many have you won..
I'm sorry Mr Dodd but that is a ridiculous response. Cameron failed to win a majority against a man considered by Tories to be the worst ever PM.
Cameron made more gains than any other party leader at any other general election since 1945, with the sole exception of Blair in 1997.
He also led a majority government for the full five years, even if it was a coalition one; it was his coalition and implemented a large part of the Tory manifesto.
Could he have done better in 2010? Undoubtedly. Was it a poor performance? No.
And of course, he has won a single-party majority as well since then.
In fact, Cameron has as many outright majority general election victories under his belt as the UKIP has seats.
Miss Plato, and reminiscent of anti-depressants. Not sure of more recent stats, but a few years ago it was something crazy like 6m people in the UK on them.
I think the way to convince the anti-immigration types is that within the EEA we can add conditionality and other clauses to come and work in the UK. Language tests, self-sufficiency rules etc... that we are currently unable to do within the EU. It won't be a big change, but it gives us a small amount of control where we currently have none.
No. As regards immigration itself, we'd be in exactly the same position as now - it's the same EU directive which applies, as I keep having to repeat. Language tests definitely a no-no. Self-sufficiency rules already apply to EU citizens.
There might be an advantage in terms of regaining the freedom to discriminate on benefits payment - I'm unsure on that point and I don't know of any authoritative source on it. In practice, though, Cameron will get something similar anyway, so I think it's academic.
The bottom line is that, if we leave the EU but sign up to the EEA, anyone who voted Leave because of immigration is going to be seriously and rightly pissed off.
Interesting to see general agreement this morning even among the Leave ranks that Leave should move on from immigration. Is isam around any more? I know he felt the opposite.
I don't think that's right. The biggest fear about the current EU is that quite a few of Merkel's million(s) will move here. Staying in the EU outsources our immigration policy to the German leader's historical brainfart.
Yes, but people the people who can be convinced to vote for leave with immigration are already voting to leave. They are the hardcore 20% of people who will vote to leave whatever happens. Swinging moderate voters who are not convinced by remain or leave is the key to winning the referendum. Banging on about immigration isn't going to help convince those people. Anyway the immigration argument will be self-explanatory around the summer when the refugee crisis heats up again and another 3m people are the gates of Europe. There is not really going to be much need for the leave side to make the argument when it will be on the news every day from May to August.
bb63 I think winning elections can be quite an achievement..not many people can do that..how many have you won..
I'm sorry Mr Dodd but that is a ridiculous response. Cameron failed to win a majority against a man considered by Tories to be the worst ever PM.
You really don't understand elections do you? The electoral mountain to climb in 2010 was enormous and Cameron did enough to get Brown out. The fact that you don't get that is very revealing.
But he almost didn't. If he'd clocked just ten seats fewer a Lib/Lab coalition would have been viable and Cameron would have been out on his Nellie.
...
I'm not sure that's true. Firstly, Clegg said during the campaign that whoever won most votes would get first crack at putting together a government; that would still have been the Tories. Secondly, Cameron was keen and ready (in both senses) to do a deal; Labour wasn't. And thirdly - and critically - for the Lib Dems to have done a deal with Labour, they'd have either had to work with Brown or a blank space.
And that final one is the killer: can you imagine the Lib Dems propping up a Labour government that had lost its majority and moral mandate, with Balls at No 11 and the whole bunker attitude? On the other hand, if Brown had resigned, who on earth were the Lib Dems supposed to negotiate a deal with, and on what authority?
The senior Lib Dems were clearly keener to do a deal with the Tories for various reasons and I think it's quite likely that even if the numbers had stacked up for a Lib-Lab pact, they'd still have gone Blue - though they'd have got a higher price.
If the UK votes to leave the EU, Scotland might well vote to leave the UK in reaction. However, given that some in Ireland are seriously pondering whether Ireland could stay in the EU if Britain leaves the EU, it would be odd for Scotland to go in the reverse direction given that its economy is even more closely tied to the UK's.
I think it is inevitable that Eire would follow a Brexit unless the EEA terms negotiated made no practical difference to them (so we stay in the VAT arrangements, for example). The same applies to Scotland. They could only afford to be in the EU when rUK wasn't if this made no difference at all to their access to the English market.
After all, we already have an obesity problem up here and we need to shift those teacakes!
EEA membership does not require remaining in any VAT arrangements. It is not part of the EEA agreement.
It doesn't have to but it is something we would want to look at. Frankly, if we are not part of such an arrangement I fear the boundary between NI and Eire will require more monitoring than at the peak of the troubles.
As well as the opportunities for fraud the paperwork that would be required in relation to imports and exports would be a serious inconvenience.
As I said on this subject the other day, there is no chance we wouldn't have a form of VAT on most goods that we have it on now. As such, with different rates of VAT in play across the EU currently, there would be no difference if we left. Bear in mind there is no uniform rate of VAT. Ireland currently has 5 different rates of VAT compared to our 3 and their top rate is 3% higher than ours.
The two big differences would be we would be able to zero rate some of those things we believe are not luxuries - most importantly energy costs - and also we would not then be giving a significant portion of our VAT receipts to the EU.
In terms of cross border arrangements with Eire there is no reason to think it would be any different to what we have now.
''Banging on about immigration isn't going to help convince those people. ''
Who is banging on about immigration, really...?? Even the most ardent kippers accept that some immigration is inevitable and even good.
This is about control. We have sub contracted immigration to a very powerful person with zero concerns about the effect her incredibly radical proposals might have on our country.
And now we have the spectacle of our prime minister tiptoeing around that person for some crumbs of power.
@Richard_Tyndall is right on VAT if we join the EEA; as he says, in practice we'd keep the VAT structure but we'd have flexibility on how we apply it.
There would be one other formal difference, which is the VAT treatment of exports to EU countries; the 'reverse charge' procedure wouldn't apply, instead the exports would be exempt from VAT and the importer would have to pay local VAT directly. I don't think this makes much difference in practice - it's different paperwork but the same overall effect.
Here in Spain private health insurance is about 40% cheaper than in the UK and works very well. Of course the big problem relates to the non-cover for existing conditions.
The Spanish Health system seems to work very well and provide a very good standard of care. One of my old muckers came back to the UK when he first became ill and was told by the NHS that his condition was such that he must expect to die soon, there was nothing they could do beyond palliative care. He went back to Spain, where the quacks took a different attitude, provided treatment and he lived for another 15 years.
Someone suggested on here a while back that OAPs living in Spain would return to the UK for the NHS - only if they are fecking daft.
I think it is less good now but most experts rate it above the UK.
Comments
You are pretty touchy - men can be like that. However, merely suggesting that the two most electorally successful politicans (since Anthony Blair) in recent UK history know more about Scottish opinion than you do is hardly a grievous insult - just a fact!
I don't hate Cameron at all, at times he can be witty and he appears to be a devoted family man, when his son died he conducted himself with great dignity. What I find peculiar is the sycophantic worship by grown men of a man who has achieved vey little. He's quite good at winning elections, albeit in very favourable circumstances, but he is a complete jelly fish.
Companies see the benefits of eg having employees go for appointments on Saturdays, or not being off sick for weeks on end waiting for surgery.
There is a private market for insurance, a lot is aimed at the baby boomers who retired at 55 and expect to be fit and health for decades yet enjoyed private health when they were working. Obviously the cost of this goes up substantially every year with age.
We have a society where people are relaxed with the obvious fact that rich people can live in the best houses, drive the best cars, eat in the best restaurants, and most people even don't mind that much that they can send their children to the best schools. But unless everyone can have the best medical care on demand, all hell breaks loose and we come over all Marxist.
I wouldn't even begin to describe the NHS as "the best medical care on demand" but I think you have it.
Flood insurance is a perfect example. If your house is on a flood plain and you are flooded out, that's a YOU problem if you don't have flood insurance, not the taxpayers.
What we really wanted from Cameron's negotiation was some sort of Associate status or "country membership" which allowed the EZ to get on with their necessary integration but which did not affect us or our national interests. We are not going to get anything like that.
So we need associate status outside the EU but in the EEA where it really should be possible to have a mutually beneficial bespoke arrangement without making the constitutional arrangements of the EU even more Byzantine than they are at the moment. The logic for this is so compelling that I have not ruled out Cameron backing it.
From a Scottish point of view I really do not think that the change between full EU membership and EEA membership on these sort of terms is likely to be a game changer. It is possible the SNP will try to use it as the basis of a second referendum but that will only occur if they are absolutely confident of the result.
I do think our political class like their summits, Councils etc and strutting about and they will be reluctant to leave such a major stage. But remaining in an organisation which is going to become ever more integrated without an effective voice is a deeply unattractive option. Cameron has tried to find an internal solution that would work but there seems very little interest elsewhere in that. The conclusion is obvious really.
That said, some do, and didn't take it out, and that's their own damned fault.
It could be offset against employer NI or Corp tax, providing they offer the insurance it to all staff (rather than just managers, say). Aim the relief squarely at the largest employers such as the supermarkets and hotel chains.
In the US it is clearly different but in the UK it is true that medical insurance is sold to the "generally well". The only exception I can think of is the group policies that some employers have on a "key man" basis.
The Spanish (and American) basis is different because the risk is spread across much wider sections of the community in the same way as car insurance is. In health we do not have such a model here at the moment.
A man on Scottish Resistance Facebook page has posted a video of himself smashing a packet of teacakes with a hammer https://t.co/bm9jQmg3YJ
Scottish nationalists can be like that.
Remind everyone how well UKIP did against Milliband, in all those Northern seats where they were going to mop up the WWC vote.
One wonders if they'll ever win a seat from scratch without the help of a defecting incumbent.
Antibiotic resistance is a major problem. GPs hand them out like Smarties, and farmers hugely overuse them in cattle feed. Both need to stop. Really really need to stop.
I used to like Tunnocks tea cakes. I don't eat them now. Nothing to do with that old Tory Boyd Tunnock's politics just my wasteline.
However Salmond has no problem with Tunnocks. He gave them millions of free advertising at the Commonwealth Games opening ceremony. That perhaps wasn't his wisest commercial decision. He should have made canny old Boyd pay for it like all the sponsors did. However it shows that Salmond has a touch of class and a great sense of humour - something totally missing from many of his detractors and virtually all of the Scottish press corps.
Nor does Sturgeon have a problem with Tunnocks caramel wafers. If I remember correctly she served them at her wedding reception!
Indeed for those of us who do it will be much easier getting clinic rooms during the week, when having days off midweek. It is very hard to get clinic rooms on Saturdays and evenings at present as they are booked solid.
Vote Leave should subtly be making this case to the floaters without shouting it too loud from the rooftops lest the EU and the CBI try and pick it apart, and those expecting an instant step change in immigration policy become disillusioned.
Now it looks like going cap in hand to a dangerous and scheming lunatic.
Come on, this is not difficult. If you want better care you should PAY for it. Yes, it costs you more out of pocket.
My view of him is completely transformed by that revelation.
A majority was there for the taking but he had at least two people trying to run the campaign and the ghastly hybrid that he came up with lost that opportunity in January and February.
The first debate then compounded it.
Was she in that seemingly forever red costume, even for her wedding?
The issue as you point out is that 95% of people would take them when not neccesary. But if you have a brain and can tell a viral from a bacterial infection, it's handy.
Much simpler to have them handy than clog up his appt book and risk it getting worse.
It's not hard. I'm amazed that GPs give them out for illnesses that won't be cured. It's pathetic. And dangerous.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/sketch/article4665878.ece
The SNP can call a new referendum if we get a Leave vote. Unfortunately they will lose, probably by a bigger margin than last time.
Yes - I am glad to see the light bulb has finally switched on
But note that Cameron may well claim he has gained 'Associate membership' and it may even be called that. But it won't be any different from our current terms of membership.
As well as the opportunities for fraud the paperwork that would be required in relation to imports and exports would be a serious inconvenience.
We put the kids through private school. Presumably, our taxes were also covering education budget. As our decision was a voluntary one, we had no room to complain. Similarly, my BUPA cover is elective; no one made me take it out.
Being a civilian requires us to be civil; this isn't just a matter of having good manners and consideration for others, it also requires us to contribute to things that may not be directly of benefit to us personally.
I would be totally behind charging people who miss NHS appointments, or who waste Doctor's time (I'm also aware of all the edge and corner cases that probably make that administratively impractical).
Someone suggested on here a while back that OAPs living in Spain would return to the UK for the NHS - only if they are fecking daft.
He also led a majority government for the full five years, even if it was a coalition one; it was his coalition and implemented a large part of the Tory manifesto.
Could he have done better in 2010? Undoubtedly. Was it a poor performance? No.
And of course, he has won a single-party majority as well since then.
In fact, Cameron has as many outright majority general election victories under his belt as the UKIP has seats.
@sgadanlassie: @MichaelWhite Arnold Schwarzenegger born under US Constitution (US occupying power, Austria, 47); therefore legally eligible for prez
Anyone tell me the odds on Arnie as next President ?
For the zillionth time:
https://eumovement.wordpress.com/directive-200438ec/
There might be an advantage in terms of regaining the freedom to discriminate on benefits payment - I'm unsure on that point and I don't know of any authoritative source on it. In practice, though, Cameron will get something similar anyway, so I think it's academic.
The bottom line is that, if we leave the EU but sign up to the EEA, anyone who voted Leave because of immigration is going to be seriously and rightly pissed off.
@ariehkovler: So Ken *was* only made co-chair of the review to sabotage Maria Eagle. She's gone so he's not needed anymore. https://t.co/MQ2avFx6Aj
And that final one is the killer: can you imagine the Lib Dems propping up a Labour government that had lost its majority and moral mandate, with Balls at No 11 and the whole bunker attitude? On the other hand, if Brown had resigned, who on earth were the Lib Dems supposed to negotiate a deal with, and on what authority?
The senior Lib Dems were clearly keener to do a deal with the Tories for various reasons and I think it's quite likely that even if the numbers had stacked up for a Lib-Lab pact, they'd still have gone Blue - though they'd have got a higher price.
The two big differences would be we would be able to zero rate some of those things we believe are not luxuries - most importantly energy costs - and also we would not then be giving a significant portion of our VAT receipts to the EU.
In terms of cross border arrangements with Eire there is no reason to think it would be any different to what we have now.
Edit: That's for either Kanye or Arnie as POTUS
Who is banging on about immigration, really...?? Even the most ardent kippers accept that some immigration is inevitable and even good.
This is about control. We have sub contracted immigration to a very powerful person with zero concerns about the effect her incredibly radical proposals might have on our country.
And now we have the spectacle of our prime minister tiptoeing around that person for some crumbs of power.
And people call Trump a nutcase.
There would be one other formal difference, which is the VAT treatment of exports to EU countries; the 'reverse charge' procedure wouldn't apply, instead the exports would be exempt from VAT and the importer would have to pay local VAT directly. I don't think this makes much difference in practice - it's different paperwork but the same overall effect.