Re Christmas travel: I'm having Christmas on my own this year. I normally go down to Devon to stay with my family, but the few that are left are getting on a bit and I see no reason to put any of us in danger. Zoom will have to take the strain.
Can you not all isolate for +/-10 days and see each other if you're that worried?
Take out care homes and hospitals and the chances of infection are quite low.
Er... I'm a teacher. Term finishes on the 18th.
Fair enough. But you're a teacher so you do the math: the chances of you having and giving it are very low.
Probably more likely to die in your car going over there.
As a teacher my chances of catching it are more than average I would say, certainly high enough that I don't want to run the risk of giving it to my octogenarian step-mother.
And you may be right about my driving, though it is a bit rude to say it...
The point is while I absolutely respect your choice if we look at the actual probabilities then I think there is a danger of getting things out of proportion.
As PB has heard more times than it needs to have I have regularly visited my 90-yr old mother these past few months and I have associated with people who have been in risky situations such as you are in.
My view is that the chances of being asymptomatic are low to start with and the chances of getting it anyway are also low. How many of your colleagues have had it?
But everyone's decisions are entirely their own and should be respected.
We have one year group self-isolating at the moment as they have had several cases. I'm not sure how many teachers now.
But the point is why take the risk? It may be fairly low for each individual, but if several million people decide that a one in a hundred chance is fine then suddenly I can't get a CT scan I need because the hospital is full of C-19 cases.
Good to see you have done the math.
As I said it's absolutely up to you to decide on your risk tolerance.
Not for me to feel that it is a shame you are foregoing seeing your family this Christmas. Hell, as a physics teacher I'm sure you don't even believe in God.
My last three bosses (i.e. the heads of the Physics department at my school) have been committed Christians. Probably best not to make assumptions about other people’s faith.
So, if I have got this Telegraph piece right, the government is setting up a Czar with powers to help facilitate more people travelling across the country in the middle of a pandemic which they have repeatedly told us is so bad that 100,000s will die and the NHS will be totally swamped unless we spend a whole year locked down?
The trouble is the Government knows (and if they know it, you and I both know it too) the emotional pull of Christmas and the understandable desire of people to spend time with their families and/or loved ones (delete as appropriate) is incredibly strong.
We are culturally brainwashed from birth to view Christmas as a special time when we get together with our families even if after 72 hours we can barely speak to each other but that's not the point.
I know from speaking to friends and work colleagues they will spend Christmas with their families irrespective of any "guideline" so short of mass arrests, the Government might as well bow to the inevitable and do as much as possible to mitigate the damage the public seems willing to inflict on itself once again in a desire to have a "normal" life.
Yes, I know - for 99% of people it's just a sniffle, apparently.
The problem and the irony is as soon as the case numbers start rising again, said public will be in the vanguard of calling for new lockdowns and urging the Government to "do something". I'm no fan of Boris Johnson and his bunch of halfwits but I would have every sympathy if sometimes, privately, they wondered why they bothered.
Describing Christmas as a "brainwashing" event is taking things a bit too far in my opinion.
Though one constant in this whole thing has been the vast emotional and psychological gulfs between groups of people.
Some people worked from home, chilled out and almost enjoyed the quiet. Zoom calls to relatives were fine. A few cancelled holidays to complain about.
Some people were driven to the edge of suicide by the isolation, by the loss of jobs, by the loss of companionship, by the loss of activities around which they'd built their lives.
For some, missing Christmas with the family is a relief For some, missing Christmas is annoying For some, missing Christmas is beyond a disaster.
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
The paradox of insurance is that it is only cheap if you don't need it. For me a weeks travel insurance is the price of a cheap dinner.
If you are eighty and had a recent cancer operation, it may not be available at any price. Those are the patients who travel on EHIC cards so that they can travel at all.
So losing EHIC won't be a problem for the rich, just the poor, poorly and elderly.
I think you are quite wrong, if you are recommending a 80 year old cancer survivor to travel in Europe on an EHIC card. That is grossly, grossly irresponsible.
If you are over eighty and had a recent cancer operation, you need medical insurance. It is always available, and it is costly -- but there is a reason for that. A cancer-stricken friend of mine went to the US, and he was able to get costly health insurance for a final trip. He is dead now.
Sorry, I don't agree that everyone has an automatic right to travel wherever they want in this world. There is a very good reason why, if you are seriously ill, you really do need medical insurance if you are travelling and it is costly.
The height of arrogance to think that the health systems of less well-off countries should take care of you as you travel while you are grossly ill.
Well, no, because it was something those countries had expressly agreed to do on a quid pro quo basis. Very unsovereign of them, obvs, but their decision.
Yes, I don't think everybody on here understands the notion of reciprocity. The EHIC costs other countries money if we need to use it abroad, but citizens of other countries benefit from its use when visiting the UK. So it works out evens, or it should. Though not after Jan 1.
Reciprocity is only neutral if there's neutrality in the treatments done.
Though I don't see what's wrong with just saying buy Health Insurance if you're travelling. 🤷🏻♂️
Well, I wouldn't expect you to think otherwise. But some of us rather enjoyed the principles of the NHS being applied across Europe, albeit with some variation according to local health services. But it's a very socialist idea to share pooled resources for the benefit of all, so best get rid of it and go private.
But it's not! It never has been!
If you travel across Europe then healthcare is categorically 100% not free at the point of use and never has been. I have a friend who at uni broke his leg on a ski holiday in Europe, ended up with a bill running into the many thousands.
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
I do understand the difference and for healthy people they rarely take out health insurance for travel within the EU because the EHIC allows them the same treatment at the same cost as the population in the country they are visiting. It is not free healthcare.
Which of course is another reason the scheme is absurd and not reciprocal, it means that if people travel here and get sick they get the NHS free of charge but if we travel we may end up still needing to pay which people don't realise and can end up very out of pocket from due to failing to get a proper actual insurance.
Abolish EHIC and tell tourists to get insurance. Problem solved.
Abolish something, tell people to do something. Libertarianism gone mad. And you are wrong, the scheme was reciprocal.
I am sure you are about to tell us that you personally "are not afraid of" its abolition. So that's ok.
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
I do understand the difference and for healthy people they rarely take out health insurance for travel within the EU because the EHIC allows them the same treatment at the same cost as the population in the country they are visiting. It is not free healthcare.
I don't think that is correct. I think most people do take out health insurance. It is not as simple as waving around your card. If you need an ambulance or flight home you are stuffed without insurance. I had a skiing accident and was taken to the local doctor in the resort. It was private and not covered by the card. I wasn't complaining with two twisted knees. Waving around my card had no effect. If I had needed to go to hospital I'm sure I would have been covered, but it didn't cover my private x-rays and treatment and it wasn't cheap and I didn't have any practical choice. Insurance covered it.
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
I do understand the difference and for healthy people they rarely take out health insurance for travel within the EU because the EHIC allows them the same treatment at the same cost as the population in the country they are visiting. It is not free healthcare.
Which of course is another reason the scheme is absurd and not reciprocal, it means that if people travel here and get sick they get the NHS free of charge but if we travel we may end up still needing to pay which people don't realise and can end up very out of pocket from due to failing to get a proper actual insurance.
Abolish EHIC and tell tourists to get insurance. Problem solved.
As I pointed out, many of the poor, poorly and elderly cannot get insurance at an affordable price. They could previously use EHIC to get basic emergency cover, now they cannot.
Emergency care in the public hospitals on the same terms as locals in many EU countries is pretty good, though not universally so.
The alternative for many would be travelling uninsured. It is one way Britons horizons have narrowed with Brexit.
I guess that they will now have to holiday in Tenby or Skegness instead.
Well, for many of my patients EHIC is the only way for them to holiday in Europe. It gets perfectly adequate emergency cover in most countries, the same as locals.
Every time I look at the Daily Mail website, there is a story of some feckless person who went to Greece or Bulgaria without medical insurance, was involved in some tragedy or emergency and is now stuck in a hospital bed in some godforsaken remote spot with a broken skull or a liver in traction.
Their relatives are always pleading with the Daily Mail readers to crowdfund a medical plane to take them home from this unhygienic hospital to the NHS in Old Blighty (or sometimes, with a bit more chutzpah, a private hospital for a speedier recovery). "Bring Mum home", they say.
I always wondered why the Daily Mail readership contains so many reckless idiots doing this.
I know now it is you, Dr Foxy, busy advising them.
If you strip the Daily Mail bigotry out of those stories (dirty foreign hospitals run by dirty foreigners vs Our Beloved NHS) is anything actually left? No one ever expected EHIC to repatriate you.
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
I do understand the difference and for healthy people they rarely take out health insurance for travel within the EU because the EHIC allows them the same treatment at the same cost as the population in the country they are visiting. It is not free healthcare.
Which of course is another reason the scheme is absurd and not reciprocal, it means that if people travel here and get sick they get the NHS free of charge but if we travel we may end up still needing to pay which people don't realise and can end up very out of pocket from due to failing to get a proper actual insurance.
Abolish EHIC and tell tourists to get insurance. Problem solved.
Abolish something, tell people to do something. Libertarianism gone mad. And you are wrong, the scheme was reciprocal.
I am sure you are about to tell us that you personally "are not afraid of" its abolition. So that's ok.
The scheme was not properly reciprocal because the two ends were not reciprocal.
If someone travelled here and got sick they could get treated free at the point of use. If someone here travelled there got sick they could get treated and left with a bill running into many hundreds or thousands.
That is not reciprocal and it is disingenuous to claim it is and has led to many people being left with nasty shocks because they naively believed they were getting NHS free at the point of use medical treatment.
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
The paradox of insurance is that it is only cheap if you don't need it. For me a weeks travel insurance is the price of a cheap dinner.
If you are eighty and had a recent cancer operation, it may not be available at any price. Those are the patients who travel on EHIC cards so that they can travel at all.
So losing EHIC won't be a problem for the rich, just the poor, poorly and elderly.
I think you are quite wrong, if you are recommending a 80 year old cancer survivor to travel in Europe on an EHIC card. That is grossly, grossly irresponsible.
If you are over eighty and had a recent cancer operation, you need medical insurance. It is always available, and it is costly -- but there is a reason for that. A cancer-stricken friend of mine went to the US, and he was able to get costly health insurance for a final trip. He is dead now.
Sorry, I don't agree that everyone has an automatic right to travel wherever they want in this world. There is a very good reason why, if you are seriously ill, you really do need medical insurance if you are travelling and it is costly.
The height of arrogance to think that the health systems of less well-off countries should take care of you as you travel while you are grossly ill.
One of the many benefits that Britons had within the EU though.
As a matter of interest, I just got a quote for a weeks travel insurance for an 81 year old going to Spain. I gave a medical history of a single previous stroke more than a year previously, and full recovery, and having had a successful bowel cancer operation more than a year previously with no signs of spread and no further treatment needed. £187 for the week, which for many of my patients would not be affordable.
This is 187 pounds for an 81 year old with serious medical conditions. It sounds good value to me.
For a young man or woman, the insurance would be (as you originally conceded) just the cost of a meal out.
If you can afford to go to Spain, if you can afford to go out for meals and drinks in Spain, you can afford to pay tens of quid towards proper medical insurance.
I think it is degrading & insulting to the host country for tourism to be done on the cheap by tourists.
It is a matter of proper respect for the country that you are visiting. You are a guest.
So, if I have got this Telegraph piece right, the government is setting up a Czar with powers to help facilitate more people travelling across the country in the middle of a pandemic which they have repeatedly told us is so bad that 100,000s will die and the NHS will be totally swamped unless we spend a whole year locked down?
The trouble is the Government knows (and if they know it, you and I both know it too) the emotional pull of Christmas and the understandable desire of people to spend time with their families and/or loved ones (delete as appropriate) is incredibly strong.
We are culturally brainwashed from birth to view Christmas as a special time when we get together with our families even if after 72 hours we can barely speak to each other but that's not the point.
I know from speaking to friends and work colleagues they will spend Christmas with their families irrespective of any "guideline" so short of mass arrests, the Government might as well bow to the inevitable and do as much as possible to mitigate the damage the public seems willing to inflict on itself once again in a desire to have a "normal" life.
Yes, I know - for 99% of people it's just a sniffle, apparently.
The problem and the irony is as soon as the case numbers start rising again, said public will be in the vanguard of calling for new lockdowns and urging the Government to "do something". I'm no fan of Boris Johnson and his bunch of halfwits but I would have every sympathy if sometimes, privately, they wondered why they bothered.
Describing Christmas as a "brainwashing" event is taking things a bit too far in my opinion.
Though one constant in this whole thing has been the vast emotional and psychological gulfs between groups of people.
Some people worked from home, chilled out and almost enjoyed the quiet. Zoom calls to relatives were fine. A few cancelled holidays to complain about.
Some people were driven to the edge of suicide by the isolation, by the loss of jobs, by the loss of companionship, by the loss of activities around which they'd built their lives.
For some, missing Christmas with the family is a relief For some, missing Christmas is annoying For some, missing Christmas is beyond a disaster.
Abso bloody lutely. Top post. Loads of the Covid related rows on here are simply because people cannot appreciate this. And the thing is that no one is actually right or wrong in how they feel. Fight, flight, freeze and feign are deeply embedded neural pathways. We respond to trauma in the way we have been successful in the past. Which is spot on correct for the individual.
Well, for many of my patients EHIC is the only way for them to holiday in Europe. It gets perfectly adequate emergency cover in most countries, the same as locals.
Every time I look at the Daily Mail website, there is a story of some feckless person who went to Greece or Bulgaria without medical insurance, was involved in some tragedy or emergency and is now stuck in a hospital bed in some godforsaken remote spot with a broken skull or a liver in traction.
Their relatives are always pleading with the Daily Mail readers to crowdfund a medical plane to take them home from this unhygienic hospital to the NHS in Old Blighty (or sometimes, with a bit more chutzpah, a private hospital for a speedier recovery). "Bring Mum home", they say.
I always wondered why the Daily Mail readership contains so many reckless idiots doing this.
I know now it is you, Dr Foxy, busy advising them.
If you strip the Daily Mail bigotry out of those stories (dirty foreign hospitals run by dirty foreigners vs Our Beloved NHS) is anything actually left? No one ever expected EHIC to repatriate you.
Foxy's original example was a seriously ill cancer patient travelling on an EHIC card.
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
I do understand the difference and for healthy people they rarely take out health insurance for travel within the EU because the EHIC allows them the same treatment at the same cost as the population in the country they are visiting. It is not free healthcare.
I don't think that is correct. I think most people do take out health insurance. It is not as simple as waving around your card. If you need an ambulance or flight home you are stuffed without insurance. I had a skiing accident and was taken to the local doctor in the resort. It was private and not covered by the card. I wasn't complaining with two twisted knees. Waving around my card had no effect. If I had needed to go to hospital I'm sure I would have been covered, but it didn't cover my private x-rays and treatment and it wasn't cheap and I didn't have any practical choice. Insurance covered it.
This. Family friend had a nasty, but fixable condition occur when on holiday in Greece. For various reasons, couldn't fly back in a regular flight. Had the insurance, came home in a medical repatriation plane. She used the bill as a conversation stopper, for a while.
Another chap smashed himself up pretty badly in Spain - similar issues. If he hadn't had insurance, he would have been looking at another mortgage.....
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
I do understand the difference and for healthy people they rarely take out health insurance for travel within the EU because the EHIC allows them the same treatment at the same cost as the population in the country they are visiting. It is not free healthcare.
Which of course is another reason the scheme is absurd and not reciprocal, it means that if people travel here and get sick they get the NHS free of charge but if we travel we may end up still needing to pay which people don't realise and can end up very out of pocket from due to failing to get a proper actual insurance.
Abolish EHIC and tell tourists to get insurance. Problem solved.
As I pointed out, many of the poor, poorly and elderly cannot get insurance at an affordable price. They could previously use EHIC to get basic emergency cover, now they cannot.
Emergency care in the public hospitals on the same terms as locals in many EU countries is pretty good, though not universally so.
The alternative for many would be travelling uninsured. It is one way Britons horizons have narrowed with Brexit.
I guess that they will now have to holiday in Tenby or Skegness instead.
Don't knock Skegness. There are plenty of perfectly decent places for people to visit in this country if people are too poorly to travel. If they're not they should pay for insurance.
Well, for many of my patients EHIC is the only way for them to holiday in Europe. It gets perfectly adequate emergency cover in most countries, the same as locals.
Every time I look at the Daily Mail website, there is a story of some feckless person who went to Greece or Bulgaria without medical insurance, was involved in some tragedy or emergency and is now stuck in a hospital bed in some godforsaken remote spot with a broken skull or a liver in traction.
Their relatives are always pleading with the Daily Mail readers to crowdfund a medical plane to take them home from this unhygienic hospital to the NHS in Old Blighty (or sometimes, with a bit more chutzpah, a private hospital for a speedier recovery). "Bring Mum home", they say.
I always wondered why the Daily Mail readership contains so many reckless idiots doing this.
I know now it is you, Dr Foxy, busy advising them.
If you strip the Daily Mail bigotry out of those stories (dirty foreign hospitals run by dirty foreigners vs Our Beloved NHS) is anything actually left? No one ever expected EHIC to repatriate you.
Foxy's original example was a seriously ill cancer patient travelling on an EHIC card.
A seriously ill Octogenarian cancer patient travelling without proper medical insurance. Madness.
Well, for many of my patients EHIC is the only way for them to holiday in Europe. It gets perfectly adequate emergency cover in most countries, the same as locals.
Every time I look at the Daily Mail website, there is a story of some feckless person who went to Greece or Bulgaria without medical insurance, was involved in some tragedy or emergency and is now stuck in a hospital bed in some godforsaken remote spot with a broken skull or a liver in traction.
Their relatives are always pleading with the Daily Mail readers to crowdfund a medical plane to take them home from this unhygienic hospital to the NHS in Old Blighty (or sometimes, with a bit more chutzpah, a private hospital for a speedier recovery). "Bring Mum home", they say.
I always wondered why the Daily Mail readership contains so many reckless idiots doing this.
I know now it is you, Dr Foxy, busy advising them.
If you strip the Daily Mail bigotry out of those stories (dirty foreign hospitals run by dirty foreigners vs Our Beloved NHS) is anything actually left? No one ever expected EHIC to repatriate you.
Foxy's original example was a seriously ill cancer patient travelling on an EHIC card.
He didn't say seriously ill, he said had a recent cancer operation, and he was describing rather than recommending. But so what anyway? Are foreign hospitals incapable of treating cancer patients?
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
The paradox of insurance is that it is only cheap if you don't need it. For me a weeks travel insurance is the price of a cheap dinner.
If you are eighty and had a recent cancer operation, it may not be available at any price. Those are the patients who travel on EHIC cards so that they can travel at all.
So losing EHIC won't be a problem for the rich, just the poor, poorly and elderly.
I think you are quite wrong, if you are recommending a 80 year old cancer survivor to travel in Europe on an EHIC card. That is grossly, grossly irresponsible.
If you are over eighty and had a recent cancer operation, you need medical insurance. It is always available, and it is costly -- but there is a reason for that. A cancer-stricken friend of mine went to the US, and he was able to get costly health insurance for a final trip. He is dead now.
Sorry, I don't agree that everyone has an automatic right to travel wherever they want in this world. There is a very good reason why, if you are seriously ill, you really do need medical insurance if you are travelling and it is costly.
The height of arrogance to think that the health systems of less well-off countries should take care of you as you travel while you are grossly ill.
One of the many benefits that Britons had within the EU though.
As a matter of interest, I just got a quote for a weeks travel insurance for an 81 year old going to Spain. I gave a medical history of a single previous stroke more than a year previously, and full recovery, and having had a successful bowel cancer operation more than a year previously with no signs of spread and no further treatment needed. £187 for the week, which for many of my patients would not be affordable.
This is 187 pounds for an 81 year old with serious medical conditions. It sounds good value to me.
For a young man or woman, the insurance would be (as you originally conceded) just the cost of a meal out.
If you can afford to go to Spain, if you can afford to go out for meals and drinks in Spain, you can afford to pay tens of quid towards proper medical insurance.
I think it is degrading & insulting to the host country for tourism to be done on the cheap by tourists.
It is a matter of proper respect for the country that you are visiting. You are a guest.
Nope, an 81 year old who has made a full recovery more than a year previously from those conditions with no residual disability. A completely unremarkable medical history in an 81 year old.
You may dispute the morality and comprehensiveness of using an EHIC card to travel, but the fact is that such a person could, and now they cannot.
I suspect that penny will drop shortly, and your beloved Daily Mail filled with stories of pensioners unable to travel because of the high cost of insurance.
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
The paradox of insurance is that it is only cheap if you don't need it. For me a weeks travel insurance is the price of a cheap dinner.
If you are eighty and had a recent cancer operation, it may not be available at any price. Those are the patients who travel on EHIC cards so that they can travel at all.
So losing EHIC won't be a problem for the rich, just the poor, poorly and elderly.
I think you are quite wrong, if you are recommending a 80 year old cancer survivor to travel in Europe on an EHIC card. That is grossly, grossly irresponsible.
If you are over eighty and had a recent cancer operation, you need medical insurance. It is always available, and it is costly -- but there is a reason for that. A cancer-stricken friend of mine went to the US, and he was able to get costly health insurance for a final trip. He is dead now.
Sorry, I don't agree that everyone has an automatic right to travel wherever they want in this world. There is a very good reason why, if you are seriously ill, you really do need medical insurance if you are travelling and it is costly.
The height of arrogance to think that the health systems of less well-off countries should take care of you as you travel while you are grossly ill.
One of the many benefits that Britons had within the EU though.
As a matter of interest, I just got a quote for a weeks travel insurance for an 81 year old going to Spain. I gave a medical history of a single previous stroke more than a year previously, and full recovery, and having had a successful bowel cancer operation more than a year previously with no signs of spread and no further treatment needed. £187 for the week, which for many of my patients would not be affordable.
This is 187 pounds for an 81 year old with serious medical conditions. It sounds good value to me.
For a young man or woman, the insurance would be (as you originally conceded) just the cost of a meal out.
If you can afford to go to Spain, if you can afford to go out for meals and drinks in Spain, you can afford to pay tens of quid towards proper medical insurance.
I think it is degrading & insulting to the host country for tourism to be done on the cheap by tourists.
It is a matter of proper respect for the country that you are visiting. You are a guest.
Get a grip! Health Tourism is for places like Malaysia or Thailand where it is so cheap that it is more effective to pay the costs of treatment there than to use an expensive Western-based travel insurance.
The EHIC ensures that (in the EU) if little Jimmy slips in the kiddie pool and breaks his wrist, he can get treated. Or if you get food poisoning from eating something. Or if something falls of a building and hits you then you medical attention.
If you do not know the difference, then maybe you should stay in the Welsh valleys.
Well, for many of my patients EHIC is the only way for them to holiday in Europe. It gets perfectly adequate emergency cover in most countries, the same as locals.
Every time I look at the Daily Mail website, there is a story of some feckless person who went to Greece or Bulgaria without medical insurance, was involved in some tragedy or emergency and is now stuck in a hospital bed in some godforsaken remote spot with a broken skull or a liver in traction.
Their relatives are always pleading with the Daily Mail readers to crowdfund a medical plane to take them home from this unhygienic hospital to the NHS in Old Blighty (or sometimes, with a bit more chutzpah, a private hospital for a speedier recovery). "Bring Mum home", they say.
I always wondered why the Daily Mail readership contains so many reckless idiots doing this.
I know now it is you, Dr Foxy, busy advising them.
If you strip the Daily Mail bigotry out of those stories (dirty foreign hospitals run by dirty foreigners vs Our Beloved NHS) is anything actually left? No one ever expected EHIC to repatriate you.
Foxy's original example was a seriously ill cancer patient travelling on an EHIC card.
Is it correct that Betfair are heading for a profit of about £50 million on the presidential market, as long as it doesn't get voided for some reason? (Apologies if I've got it wrong).
It is a common misconception but completely wrong for several reasons.
Their average comm rate is about 3% not 5%. Anyone can opt in for 2% if they want it nowadays, not everyone does, you get some sportsbook freebies if you pay a higher rate.
Bets are double counted. If two people back £100 @ evens, its £200 matched but commission is only paid on the winners £100.
Correcting for those reduces your £50m to 0.5*0.6*50 = £15m
However the vast majority of the betting on the market is people trading in and out, not people taking new positions. At a guess this reduces it to £3m-£4m.
And finally, half the trade on the market has been at Biden at very low odds. If someone backs £100 @ 1.1 and wins £10, the commission is on the 3% (on avg) of £10 yet the matched amount goes up by the £200 still.
If Biden wins I would estimate their commission is somewhere around £1.5-2.5m, if Trump wins it will be more, maybe £5m. On sportsbook I don't know how much they will have hedged but without hedging should be winning plenty on Biden.
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
The paradox of insurance is that it is only cheap if you don't need it. For me a weeks travel insurance is the price of a cheap dinner.
If you are eighty and had a recent cancer operation, it may not be available at any price. Those are the patients who travel on EHIC cards so that they can travel at all.
So losing EHIC won't be a problem for the rich, just the poor, poorly and elderly.
I think you are quite wrong, if you are recommending a 80 year old cancer survivor to travel in Europe on an EHIC card. That is grossly, grossly irresponsible.
If you are over eighty and had a recent cancer operation, you need medical insurance. It is always available, and it is costly -- but there is a reason for that. A cancer-stricken friend of mine went to the US, and he was able to get costly health insurance for a final trip. He is dead now.
Sorry, I don't agree that everyone has an automatic right to travel wherever they want in this world. There is a very good reason why, if you are seriously ill, you really do need medical insurance if you are travelling and it is costly.
The height of arrogance to think that the health systems of less well-off countries should take care of you as you travel while you are grossly ill.
One of the many benefits that Britons had within the EU though.
As a matter of interest, I just got a quote for a weeks travel insurance for an 81 year old going to Spain. I gave a medical history of a single previous stroke more than a year previously, and full recovery, and having had a successful bowel cancer operation more than a year previously with no signs of spread and no further treatment needed. £187 for the week, which for many of my patients would not be affordable.
This is 187 pounds for an 81 year old with serious medical conditions. It sounds good value to me.
For a young man or woman, the insurance would be (as you originally conceded) just the cost of a meal out.
If you can afford to go to Spain, if you can afford to go out for meals and drinks in Spain, you can afford to pay tens of quid towards proper medical insurance.
I think it is degrading & insulting to the host country for tourism to be done on the cheap by tourists.
It is a matter of proper respect for the country that you are visiting. You are a guest.
Get a grip! Health Tourism is for places like Malaysia or Thailand where it is so cheap that it is more effective to pay the costs of treatment there than to use an expensive Western-based travel insurance.
The EHIC ensures that (in the EU) if little Jimmy slips in the kiddie pool and breaks his wrist, he can get treated. Or if you get food poisoning from eating something. Or if something falls of a building and hits you then you medical attention.
If you do not know the difference, then maybe you should stay in the Welsh valleys.
See my post. This is not correct. Even with the card you could get hit with an enormous bill.
Well, for many of my patients EHIC is the only way for them to holiday in Europe. It gets perfectly adequate emergency cover in most countries, the same as locals.
Every time I look at the Daily Mail website, there is a story of some feckless person who went to Greece or Bulgaria without medical insurance, was involved in some tragedy or emergency and is now stuck in a hospital bed in some godforsaken remote spot with a broken skull or a liver in traction.
Their relatives are always pleading with the Daily Mail readers to crowdfund a medical plane to take them home from this unhygienic hospital to the NHS in Old Blighty (or sometimes, with a bit more chutzpah, a private hospital for a speedier recovery). "Bring Mum home", they say.
I always wondered why the Daily Mail readership contains so many reckless idiots doing this.
I know now it is you, Dr Foxy, busy advising them.
If you strip the Daily Mail bigotry out of those stories (dirty foreign hospitals run by dirty foreigners vs Our Beloved NHS) is anything actually left? No one ever expected EHIC to repatriate you.
Foxy's original example was a seriously ill cancer patient travelling on an EHIC card.
He didn't say seriously ill, he said had a recent cancer operation, and he was describing rather than recommending. But so what anyway? Are foreign hospitals incapable of treating cancer patients?
Will you not want to be visited as you lie, terminally ill in a cancer ward, in a remote place in Bulgaria?
Because you didn't pay for medical insurance, your relatives now have to fund trips out to the Bulgaria to visit you.
An octogenarian cancer survivor should not be travelling on an EHIC card. That is it.
So, if I have got this Telegraph piece right, the government is setting up a Czar with powers to help facilitate more people travelling across the country in the middle of a pandemic which they have repeatedly told us is so bad that 100,000s will die and the NHS will be totally swamped unless we spend a whole year locked down?
The trouble is the Government knows (and if they know it, you and I both know it too) the emotional pull of Christmas and the understandable desire of people to spend time with their families and/or loved ones (delete as appropriate) is incredibly strong.
We are culturally brainwashed from birth to view Christmas as a special time when we get together with our families even if after 72 hours we can barely speak to each other but that's not the point.
I know from speaking to friends and work colleagues they will spend Christmas with their families irrespective of any "guideline" so short of mass arrests, the Government might as well bow to the inevitable and do as much as possible to mitigate the damage the public seems willing to inflict on itself once again in a desire to have a "normal" life.
Yes, I know - for 99% of people it's just a sniffle, apparently.
The problem and the irony is as soon as the case numbers start rising again, said public will be in the vanguard of calling for new lockdowns and urging the Government to "do something". I'm no fan of Boris Johnson and his bunch of halfwits but I would have every sympathy if sometimes, privately, they wondered why they bothered.
Describing Christmas as a "brainwashing" event is taking things a bit too far in my opinion.
Though one constant in this whole thing has been the vast emotional and psychological gulfs between groups of people.
Some people worked from home, chilled out and almost enjoyed the quiet. Zoom calls to relatives were fine. A few cancelled holidays to complain about.
Some people were driven to the edge of suicide by the isolation, by the loss of jobs, by the loss of companionship, by the loss of activities around which they'd built their lives.
For some, missing Christmas with the family is a relief For some, missing Christmas is annoying For some, missing Christmas is beyond a disaster.
Abso bloody lutely. Top post. Loads of the Covid related rows on here are simply because people cannot appreciate this. And the thing is that no one is actually right or wrong in how they feel. Fight, flight, freeze and feign are deeply embedded neural pathways. We respond to trauma in the way we have been successful in the past. Which is spot on correct for the individual.
It is interesting to see how other people view the world.
For example - I have been accused of being unfeeling, in the past, because my response to accident and disaster is to become *less emotional*. For me, Keep Calm and Think are just a natural state. Yet others think that almost evil....
If your response to some things is not scream and wail, they think, you are not human.
Primacy of emotion over physical reality seems... strange to me. So I try to understand it in others.
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
The paradox of insurance is that it is only cheap if you don't need it. For me a weeks travel insurance is the price of a cheap dinner.
If you are eighty and had a recent cancer operation, it may not be available at any price. Those are the patients who travel on EHIC cards so that they can travel at all.
So losing EHIC won't be a problem for the rich, just the poor, poorly and elderly.
I think you are quite wrong, if you are recommending a 80 year old cancer survivor to travel in Europe on an EHIC card. That is grossly, grossly irresponsible.
If you are over eighty and had a recent cancer operation, you need medical insurance. It is always available, and it is costly -- but there is a reason for that. A cancer-stricken friend of mine went to the US, and he was able to get costly health insurance for a final trip. He is dead now.
Sorry, I don't agree that everyone has an automatic right to travel wherever they want in this world. There is a very good reason why, if you are seriously ill, you really do need medical insurance if you are travelling and it is costly.
The height of arrogance to think that the health systems of less well-off countries should take care of you as you travel while you are grossly ill.
One of the many benefits that Britons had within the EU though.
As a matter of interest, I just got a quote for a weeks travel insurance for an 81 year old going to Spain. I gave a medical history of a single previous stroke more than a year previously, and full recovery, and having had a successful bowel cancer operation more than a year previously with no signs of spread and no further treatment needed. £187 for the week, which for many of my patients would not be affordable.
This is 187 pounds for an 81 year old with serious medical conditions. It sounds good value to me.
For a young man or woman, the insurance would be (as you originally conceded) just the cost of a meal out.
If you can afford to go to Spain, if you can afford to go out for meals and drinks in Spain, you can afford to pay tens of quid towards proper medical insurance.
I think it is degrading & insulting to the host country for tourism to be done on the cheap by tourists.
It is a matter of proper respect for the country that you are visiting. You are a guest.
Nope, an 81 year old who has made a full recovery more than a year previously from those conditions with no residual disability. A completely unremarkable medical history in an 81 year old.
You may dispute the morality and comprehensiveness of using an EHIC card to travel, but the fact is that such a person could, and now they cannot.
I suspect that penny will drop shortly, and your beloved Daily Mail filled with stories of pensioners unable to travel because of the high cost of insurance.
So Tenby it is...
It is not my beloved Daily Mail. It is full of idiots who seem to be advised by you.
Well, for many of my patients EHIC is the only way for them to holiday in Europe. It gets perfectly adequate emergency cover in most countries, the same as locals.
Every time I look at the Daily Mail website, there is a story of some feckless person who went to Greece or Bulgaria without medical insurance, was involved in some tragedy or emergency and is now stuck in a hospital bed in some godforsaken remote spot with a broken skull or a liver in traction.
Their relatives are always pleading with the Daily Mail readers to crowdfund a medical plane to take them home from this unhygienic hospital to the NHS in Old Blighty (or sometimes, with a bit more chutzpah, a private hospital for a speedier recovery). "Bring Mum home", they say.
I always wondered why the Daily Mail readership contains so many reckless idiots doing this.
I know now it is you, Dr Foxy, busy advising them.
If you strip the Daily Mail bigotry out of those stories (dirty foreign hospitals run by dirty foreigners vs Our Beloved NHS) is anything actually left? No one ever expected EHIC to repatriate you.
Foxy's original example was a seriously ill cancer patient travelling on an EHIC card.
Well, for many of my patients EHIC is the only way for them to holiday in Europe. It gets perfectly adequate emergency cover in most countries, the same as locals.
Every time I look at the Daily Mail website, there is a story of some feckless person who went to Greece or Bulgaria without medical insurance, was involved in some tragedy or emergency and is now stuck in a hospital bed in some godforsaken remote spot with a broken skull or a liver in traction.
Their relatives are always pleading with the Daily Mail readers to crowdfund a medical plane to take them home from this unhygienic hospital to the NHS in Old Blighty (or sometimes, with a bit more chutzpah, a private hospital for a speedier recovery). "Bring Mum home", they say.
I always wondered why the Daily Mail readership contains so many reckless idiots doing this.
I know now it is you, Dr Foxy, busy advising them.
If you strip the Daily Mail bigotry out of those stories (dirty foreign hospitals run by dirty foreigners vs Our Beloved NHS) is anything actually left? No one ever expected EHIC to repatriate you.
Foxy's original example was a seriously ill cancer patient travelling on an EHIC card.
He didn't say seriously ill, he said had a recent cancer operation, and he was describing rather than recommending. But so what anyway? Are foreign hospitals incapable of treating cancer patients?
Will you not want to be visited as you lie, terminally ill in a cancer ward, in a remote place in Bulgaria?
Because you didn't pay for medical insurance, your relatives now have to fund trips out to the Bulgaria to visit you.
An octogenarian cancer survivor should not be travelling on an EHIC card. That is it.
Indeed it is highly irresponsible to suggest they should.
And the reason proper insurance costs £187 is precisely because it is covering the costs the octogenarian could quite foreseeably need to pay which the EHIC simply does not cover. It is apples and oranges.
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
The paradox of insurance is that it is only cheap if you don't need it. For me a weeks travel insurance is the price of a cheap dinner.
If you are eighty and had a recent cancer operation, it may not be available at any price. Those are the patients who travel on EHIC cards so that they can travel at all.
So losing EHIC won't be a problem for the rich, just the poor, poorly and elderly.
I think you are quite wrong, if you are recommending a 80 year old cancer survivor to travel in Europe on an EHIC card. That is grossly, grossly irresponsible.
If you are over eighty and had a recent cancer operation, you need medical insurance. It is always available, and it is costly -- but there is a reason for that. A cancer-stricken friend of mine went to the US, and he was able to get costly health insurance for a final trip. He is dead now.
Sorry, I don't agree that everyone has an automatic right to travel wherever they want in this world. There is a very good reason why, if you are seriously ill, you really do need medical insurance if you are travelling and it is costly.
The height of arrogance to think that the health systems of less well-off countries should take care of you as you travel while you are grossly ill.
One of the many benefits that Britons had within the EU though.
As a matter of interest, I just got a quote for a weeks travel insurance for an 81 year old going to Spain. I gave a medical history of a single previous stroke more than a year previously, and full recovery, and having had a successful bowel cancer operation more than a year previously with no signs of spread and no further treatment needed. £187 for the week, which for many of my patients would not be affordable.
This is 187 pounds for an 81 year old with serious medical conditions. It sounds good value to me.
For a young man or woman, the insurance would be (as you originally conceded) just the cost of a meal out.
If you can afford to go to Spain, if you can afford to go out for meals and drinks in Spain, you can afford to pay tens of quid towards proper medical insurance.
I think it is degrading & insulting to the host country for tourism to be done on the cheap by tourists.
It is a matter of proper respect for the country that you are visiting. You are a guest.
Get a grip! Health Tourism is for places like Malaysia or Thailand where it is so cheap that it is more effective to pay the costs of treatment there than to use an expensive Western-based travel insurance.
The EHIC ensures that (in the EU) if little Jimmy slips in the kiddie pool and breaks his wrist, he can get treated. Or if you get food poisoning from eating something. Or if something falls of a building and hits you then you medical attention.
If you do not know the difference, then maybe you should stay in the Welsh valleys.
Of your original post, various different posters have shown that the statement about the driving license was wrong, the statement about the medical insurance was wrong and the statement about the visas was wrong.
Well, for many of my patients EHIC is the only way for them to holiday in Europe. It gets perfectly adequate emergency cover in most countries, the same as locals.
Every time I look at the Daily Mail website, there is a story of some feckless person who went to Greece or Bulgaria without medical insurance, was involved in some tragedy or emergency and is now stuck in a hospital bed in some godforsaken remote spot with a broken skull or a liver in traction.
Their relatives are always pleading with the Daily Mail readers to crowdfund a medical plane to take them home from this unhygienic hospital to the NHS in Old Blighty (or sometimes, with a bit more chutzpah, a private hospital for a speedier recovery). "Bring Mum home", they say.
I always wondered why the Daily Mail readership contains so many reckless idiots doing this.
I know now it is you, Dr Foxy, busy advising them.
If you strip the Daily Mail bigotry out of those stories (dirty foreign hospitals run by dirty foreigners vs Our Beloved NHS) is anything actually left? No one ever expected EHIC to repatriate you.
Foxy's original example was a seriously ill cancer patient travelling on an EHIC card.
He didn't say seriously ill, he said had a recent cancer operation, and he was describing rather than recommending. But so what anyway? Are foreign hospitals incapable of treating cancer patients?
Will you not want to be visited as you lie, terminally ill in a cancer ward, in a remote place in Bulgaria?
Because you didn't pay for medical insurance, your relatives now have to fund trips out to the Bulgaria to visit you.
An octogenarian cancer survivor should not be travelling on an EHIC card. That is it.
Funds permitting that is right. But it was free, and a fck of a sight better than nothing, and a particular benefit to the poor.
Well, for many of my patients EHIC is the only way for them to holiday in Europe. It gets perfectly adequate emergency cover in most countries, the same as locals.
Every time I look at the Daily Mail website, there is a story of some feckless person who went to Greece or Bulgaria without medical insurance, was involved in some tragedy or emergency and is now stuck in a hospital bed in some godforsaken remote spot with a broken skull or a liver in traction.
Their relatives are always pleading with the Daily Mail readers to crowdfund a medical plane to take them home from this unhygienic hospital to the NHS in Old Blighty (or sometimes, with a bit more chutzpah, a private hospital for a speedier recovery). "Bring Mum home", they say.
I always wondered why the Daily Mail readership contains so many reckless idiots doing this.
I know now it is you, Dr Foxy, busy advising them.
If you strip the Daily Mail bigotry out of those stories (dirty foreign hospitals run by dirty foreigners vs Our Beloved NHS) is anything actually left? No one ever expected EHIC to repatriate you.
Foxy's original example was a seriously ill cancer patient travelling on an EHIC card.
He didn't say seriously ill, he said had a recent cancer operation, and he was describing rather than recommending. But so what anyway? Are foreign hospitals incapable of treating cancer patients?
Will you not want to be visited as you lie, terminally ill in a cancer ward, in a remote place in Bulgaria?
Because you didn't pay for medical insurance, your relatives now have to fund trips out to the Bulgaria to visit you.
An octogenarian cancer survivor should not be travelling on an EHIC card. That is it.
Funds permitting that is right. But it was free, and a fck of a sight better than nothing, and a particular benefit to the poor.
Nothing is free.
It was a terrible scheme that left many using it in penury being lumped with bills running into the thousands they couldn't afford and didn't expect as they thought they were "insured".
While also allowing a far more comprehensive free at the point of use medical treatments that we would generously pay for tourists here to get while our citizens got far less comprehensive insurance.
Is it correct that Betfair are heading for a profit of about £50 million on the presidential market, as long as it doesn't get voided for some reason? (Apologies if I've got it wrong).
It is a common misconception but completely wrong for several reasons.
Their average comm rate is about 3% not 5%. Anyone can opt in for 2% if they want it nowadays, not everyone does, you get some sportsbook freebies if you pay a higher rate.
Bets are double counted. If two people back £100 @ evens, its £200 matched but commission is only paid on the winners £100.
Correcting for those reduces your £50m to 0.5*0.6*50 = £15m
However the vast majority of the betting on the market is people trading in and out, not people taking new positions. At a guess this reduces it to £3m-£4m.
And finally, half the trade on the market has been at Biden at very low odds. If someone backs £100 @ 1.1 and wins £10, the commission is on the 3% (on avg) of £10 yet the matched amount goes up by the £200 still.
If Biden wins I would estimate their commission is somewhere around £1.5-2.5m, if Trump wins it will be more, maybe £5m. On sportsbook I don't know how much they will have hedged but without hedging should be winning plenty on Biden.
Spot on: albeit I suspect that their commission will be more similar between the two outcomes than you suggest.
Well, for many of my patients EHIC is the only way for them to holiday in Europe. It gets perfectly adequate emergency cover in most countries, the same as locals.
Every time I look at the Daily Mail website, there is a story of some feckless person who went to Greece or Bulgaria without medical insurance, was involved in some tragedy or emergency and is now stuck in a hospital bed in some godforsaken remote spot with a broken skull or a liver in traction.
Their relatives are always pleading with the Daily Mail readers to crowdfund a medical plane to take them home from this unhygienic hospital to the NHS in Old Blighty (or sometimes, with a bit more chutzpah, a private hospital for a speedier recovery). "Bring Mum home", they say.
I always wondered why the Daily Mail readership contains so many reckless idiots doing this.
I know now it is you, Dr Foxy, busy advising them.
If you strip the Daily Mail bigotry out of those stories (dirty foreign hospitals run by dirty foreigners vs Our Beloved NHS) is anything actually left? No one ever expected EHIC to repatriate you.
Foxy's original example was a seriously ill cancer patient travelling on an EHIC card.
He didn't say seriously ill, he said had a recent cancer operation, and he was describing rather than recommending. But so what anyway? Are foreign hospitals incapable of treating cancer patients?
Will you not want to be visited as you lie, terminally ill in a cancer ward, in a remote place in Bulgaria?
Because you didn't pay for medical insurance, your relatives now have to fund trips out to the Bulgaria to visit you.
An octogenarian cancer survivor should not be travelling on an EHIC card. That is it.
Funds permitting that is right. But it was free, and a fck of a sight better than nothing, and a particular benefit to the poor.
Nothing is free.
It was a terrible scheme that left many using it in penury being lumped with bills running into the thousands they couldn't afford and didn't expect as they thought they were "insured".
While also allowing a far more comprehensive free at the point of use medical treatments that we would generously pay for tourists here to get while our citizens got far less comprehensive insurance.
Emergency treatments are covered in full in many EU countries on an EHIC card. Not all, but many of the popular destinations. The other advantage is that all pre existing conditions are covered. Travel insurance may refuse to cover these, in my 81 year old for example, in which case it is useful back up and supplement to travel insurance which otherwise would have major gaps.
In the end, it was something that we had, that from 1 Jan we will not.
Is it correct that Betfair are heading for a profit of about £50 million on the presidential market, as long as it doesn't get voided for some reason? (Apologies if I've got it wrong).
It is a common misconception but completely wrong for several reasons.
Their average comm rate is about 3% not 5%. Anyone can opt in for 2% if they want it nowadays, not everyone does, you get some sportsbook freebies if you pay a higher rate.
Bets are double counted. If two people back £100 @ evens, its £200 matched but commission is only paid on the winners £100.
Correcting for those reduces your £50m to 0.5*0.6*50 = £15m
However the vast majority of the betting on the market is people trading in and out, not people taking new positions. At a guess this reduces it to £3m-£4m.
And finally, half the trade on the market has been at Biden at very low odds. If someone backs £100 @ 1.1 and wins £10, the commission is on the 3% (on avg) of £10 yet the matched amount goes up by the £200 still.
If Biden wins I would estimate their commission is somewhere around £1.5-2.5m, if Trump wins it will be more, maybe £5m. On sportsbook I don't know how much they will have hedged but without hedging should be winning plenty on Biden.
Spot on: albeit I suspect that their commission will be more similar between the two outcomes than you suggest.
Probably less than £1 million imo. The big-priced bets on the losers are won by the layers, and from their point of view at long odds-on. And probably all the big players will be at 2% commission or even less (though depending what else they do might run into premium charges).
Will you not want to be visited as you lie, terminally ill in a cancer ward, in a remote place in Bulgaria?
Because you didn't pay for medical insurance, your relatives now have to fund trips out to the Bulgaria to visit you.
An octogenarian cancer survivor should not be travelling on an EHIC card. That is it.
Funds permitting that is right. But it was free, and a fck of a sight better than nothing, and a particular benefit to the poor.
Well, mainly I'd like to be treated - having relatives visit would (perhaps!) be pleasant, but I wouldn't expect the insurance to cover it. If I felt very vulnerable I probably wouldn't go to a remote place anyway.
The card was a pleasant substitute for basic insurance for reasonably healthy and/or impecunious people against disasters. It's not controversial to be sorry it's no longer available.
The only time I had an accident was in Switzerland, where my third class (basic, like the EHIC) insurance gave me a room with a mountain view which was far nicer than my hotel room, though there were 3 other beds in it (one occupied). More insurance would have been pointless, unless one hates company.
Will you not want to be visited as you lie, terminally ill in a cancer ward, in a remote place in Bulgaria?
Because you didn't pay for medical insurance, your relatives now have to fund trips out to the Bulgaria to visit you.
An octogenarian cancer survivor should not be travelling on an EHIC card. That is it.
Funds permitting that is right. But it was free, and a fck of a sight better than nothing, and a particular benefit to the poor.
Well, mainly I'd like to be treated - having relatives visit would (perhaps!) be pleasant, but I wouldn't expect the insurance to cover it. If I felt very vulnerable I probably wouldn't go to a remote place anyway.
The card was a pleasant substitute for basic insurance for reasonably healthy and/or impecunious people against disasters. It's not controversial to be sorry it's no longer available.
Agreed, I am sorry it has gone, the EHIC was a useful little thing.
Perhaps it will return in due course (e.g., Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein or Switzerland are EHIC participants).
I guess there was some excitable over-exaggeration from its supporters as to its value (an old Remainer failing, and one of the reasons why the referendum was lost).
The EHIC was/is certainly not designed to permit octogenarian cancer patients to biff about Europe without proper medical insurance.
Approx 25 Republican legislators in Pennsylvania are supporting a resolution to:
"declare the 2020 election results as being “in dispute,” delay the certification of votes from Pennsylvania for both the state and presidential races and asks for the U.S. Congress to also declare the 2020 presidential race to be in dispute."
So it appears that a substantial number of PA legislators are really going to make a serious attempt to overturn the election.
I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that Betfair has not settled yet.
The facts don't matter. Not only Trump - we saw it on here yesterday with the response of people in Scotland to the facts re Scotland's finances. If people are determined to believe something they will believe it.
It looks entirely possible to me that in order to win Biden is going to need the Supreme Court to rule in his favour. Of course they should do, but given the level of partisanship literally anything is possible.
Approx 25 Republican legislators in Pennsylvania are supporting a resolution to:
"declare the 2020 election results as being “in dispute,” delay the certification of votes from Pennsylvania for both the state and presidential races and asks for the U.S. Congress to also declare the 2020 presidential race to be in dispute."
So it appears that a substantial number of PA legislators are really going to make a serious attempt to overturn the election.
I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that Betfair has not settled yet.
The facts don't matter. Not only Trump - we saw it on here yesterday with the response of people in Scotland to the facts re Scotland's finances. If people are determined to believe something they will believe it.
It looks entirely possible to me that in order to win Biden is going to need the Supreme Court to rule in his favour. Of course they should do, but given the level of partisanship literally anything is possible.
Biden has been as weak as piss when it comes to countering Trump's claims so when/if he eventually does lose he'll fucking deserve it.
Republicans seem, to me, to fall into three categories:
a) Want Trump to over turn the result and don't give a fuck how he does it.
b) Will indulge him because they think he'll give up eventually and they won't be primaried or possibly shot by the MAGA Army for failing the sacramental test of loyalty (see also Brexit).
c) Think he should concede to Biden.
a + b > c
If he drags this out long enough and starts get some favourable results then b)s will start turning into a)s if they think victory is possible.
Approx 25 Republican legislators in Pennsylvania are supporting a resolution to:
"declare the 2020 election results as being “in dispute,” delay the certification of votes from Pennsylvania for both the state and presidential races and asks for the U.S. Congress to also declare the 2020 presidential race to be in dispute."
So it appears that a substantial number of PA legislators are really going to make a serious attempt to overturn the election.
I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that Betfair has not settled yet.
The facts don't matter. Not only Trump - we saw it on here yesterday with the response of people in Scotland to the facts re Scotland's finances. If people are determined to believe something they will believe it.
It looks entirely possible to me that in order to win Biden is going to need the Supreme Court to rule in his favour. Of course they should do, but given the level of partisanship literally anything is possible.
Approx 25 Republican legislators in Pennsylvania are supporting a resolution to:
"declare the 2020 election results as being “in dispute,” delay the certification of votes from Pennsylvania for both the state and presidential races and asks for the U.S. Congress to also declare the 2020 presidential race to be in dispute."
So it appears that a substantial number of PA legislators are really going to make a serious attempt to overturn the election.
I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that Betfair has not settled yet.
The facts don't matter. Not only Trump - we saw it on here yesterday with the response of people in Scotland to the facts re Scotland's finances. If people are determined to believe something they will believe it.
It looks entirely possible to me that in order to win Biden is going to need the Supreme Court to rule in his favour. Of course they should do, but given the level of partisanship literally anything is possible.
Problems with this: 1) They've got 25 legislators. They need 102. If they had 102 they'd have said so. 2) Even if they had 102, the resolution is non-binding. 3) Even if it was binding, it isn't getting a vote 4) Even if it was getting a vote, it's too late, their terms end on Monday 5) Even if they passed it the governor would veto it 6) Even if the governor didn't veto it the PA supreme court would kill it 7) Even if the PA supreme court didn't kill it they need to do the same in a bunch of other states 8) Even if they did the same in all the other states the best they could do would be to hand the presidency to Nancy Pelosi.
Approx 25 Republican legislators in Pennsylvania are supporting a resolution to:
"declare the 2020 election results as being “in dispute,” delay the certification of votes from Pennsylvania for both the state and presidential races and asks for the U.S. Congress to also declare the 2020 presidential race to be in dispute."
So it appears that a substantial number of PA legislators are really going to make a serious attempt to overturn the election.
I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that Betfair has not settled yet.
The facts don't matter. Not only Trump - we saw it on here yesterday with the response of people in Scotland to the facts re Scotland's finances. If people are determined to believe something they will believe it.
It looks entirely possible to me that in order to win Biden is going to need the Supreme Court to rule in his favour. Of course they should do, but given the level of partisanship literally anything is possible.
Problems with this: 1) They've got 25 legislators. They need 102. If they had 102 they'd have said so. 2) Even if they had 102, the resolution is non-binding. 3) Even if it was binding, it isn't getting a vote 4) Even if it was getting a vote, it's too late, their terms end on Monday 5) Even if they passed it the governor would veto it 6) Even if the governor didn't veto it the PA supreme court would kill it 7) Even if the PA supreme court didn't kill it they need to do the same in a bunch of other states 8) Even if they did the same in all the other states the best they could do would be to hand the presidency to Nancy Pelosi.
Yeah it's nonsense and Trump just lost the major battle in Pa. It's on the Pittsburgh newsfeed and hasn't, so far as I can see, got a mention on any major network.
Approx 25 Republican legislators in Pennsylvania are supporting a resolution to:
"declare the 2020 election results as being “in dispute,” delay the certification of votes from Pennsylvania for both the state and presidential races and asks for the U.S. Congress to also declare the 2020 presidential race to be in dispute."
So it appears that a substantial number of PA legislators are really going to make a serious attempt to overturn the election.
I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that Betfair has not settled yet.
The facts don't matter. Not only Trump - we saw it on here yesterday with the response of people in Scotland to the facts re Scotland's finances. If people are determined to believe something they will believe it.
It looks entirely possible to me that in order to win Biden is going to need the Supreme Court to rule in his favour. Of course they should do, but given the level of partisanship literally anything is possible.
Problems with this: 1) They've got 25 legislators. They need 102. If they had 102 they'd have said so. 2) Even if they had 102, the resolution is non-binding. 3) Even if it was binding, it isn't getting a vote 4) Even if it was getting a vote, it's too late, their terms end on Monday 5) Even if they passed it the governor would veto it 6) Even if the governor didn't veto it the PA supreme court would kill it 7) Even if the PA supreme court didn't kill it they need to do the same in a bunch of other states 8) Even if they did the same in all the other states the best they could do would be to hand the presidency to Nancy Pelosi.
If they uncertify results they also dissolve themselves, also Betfair's rules specifically prohibit nonsense like this.
Approx 25 Republican legislators in Pennsylvania are supporting a resolution to:
"declare the 2020 election results as being “in dispute,” delay the certification of votes from Pennsylvania for both the state and presidential races and asks for the U.S. Congress to also declare the 2020 presidential race to be in dispute."
So it appears that a substantial number of PA legislators are really going to make a serious attempt to overturn the election.
I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that Betfair has not settled yet.
The facts don't matter. Not only Trump - we saw it on here yesterday with the response of people in Scotland to the facts re Scotland's finances. If people are determined to believe something they will believe it.
It looks entirely possible to me that in order to win Biden is going to need the Supreme Court to rule in his favour. Of course they should do, but given the level of partisanship literally anything is possible.
Biden has been as weak as piss when it comes to countering Trump's claims so when/if he eventually does lose he'll fucking deserve it.
Republicans seem, to me, to fall into three categories:
a) Want Trump to over turn the result and don't give a fuck how he does it.
b) Will indulge him because they think he'll give up eventually and they won't be primaried or possibly shot by the MAGA Army for failing the sacramental test of loyalty (see also Brexit).
c) Think he should concede to Biden.
a + b > c
If he drags this out long enough and starts get some favourable results then b)s will start turning into a)s if they think victory is possible.
That might well have been true had he ‘started to get some favourable results’. Fortunately we’re only four years into Trumpian takeover of state legislatures and judiciaries. So there are enough of c to have run relatively honest state elections and counts for the presidency. And insufficient scofflaws on state and federal benches to overturn the result.
He has set a template, along with mistakes to learn from, for how a future election might successfully be stolen.
One thing that has been a pleasent surprise is that judges have acted to uphold the law rather than as Trump hacks. I mean they always should but you never quite could be sure before something or other reached some Trump appointees.
The sole exception so far looks to be Patricia McCullough with the clear MAGA batsign of attempting to block PA certification.
Didn't have any skin in this exact market. My Biden bets, except some hedging, were on Ladbrokes, who took a day or two, which was not bad given some uncertainty.
To overturn a legit won election in the US by basically cheating you need the following. i) Stacked SC. I think potentially only Thomas and ACB would chuck Trump the election if push and shove came. Alito is borderline but I think he'd concur with Gorsuch along zealous conservative but not throwing the election lines. Kavanaugh isn't actually as zealous as the previous four, he may well point out how odd it would appear for the SC to change a result accepted for weeks ! Roberts and the 3 others wouldn't entertain such nonsense at all, Roberts is only interested in skewing the election to the GOP before the vote, and he is no fan of Trump. The SC is highly conservative stacked but thats different to chucking Trump the election. As said I wouldn't put my life savings on Thomas out of all 9 of them ruling correctly though. ii) Senate and house majority iii) Majority or even supermajority legislatures iv) Governorships v) Close result in one, maybe two states max.
Approx 25 Republican legislators in Pennsylvania are supporting a resolution to:
"declare the 2020 election results as being “in dispute,” delay the certification of votes from Pennsylvania for both the state and presidential races and asks for the U.S. Congress to also declare the 2020 presidential race to be in dispute."
So it appears that a substantial number of PA legislators are really going to make a serious attempt to overturn the election.
I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that Betfair has not settled yet.
The facts don't matter. Not only Trump - we saw it on here yesterday with the response of people in Scotland to the facts re Scotland's finances. If people are determined to believe something they will believe it.
It looks entirely possible to me that in order to win Biden is going to need the Supreme Court to rule in his favour. Of course they should do, but given the level of partisanship literally anything is possible.
The level of partisanship among judges seems to be close to zero so far - including judges with strong conservative leanings who were appointed by Trump, such as Stephanos Bibas who presented the appeal judgment yesterday. His Wikipedia page says he was a former donor to the Republican party and a former member of the Federalist Society ("an organization of conservatives and libertarians that advocates for a textualist and originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution"). He simply threw the case out as "without merit".
8) Even if they did the same in all the other states the best they could do would be to hand the presidency to Nancy Pelosi.
Two years of Pelosi (until the Republicans regain Congress) is better than four years of Biden - from the perspective the Trumpaloompas.
This is true. But it doesn't help people who bet on Trump.
One sign that the Trump odds are the way they are because Maga punters are dumb as fuck, rather than because these various maneuvers might actually go somewhere, is that we're not hearing about a market somewhere with similar odds on Pelosi.
Approx 25 Republican legislators in Pennsylvania are supporting a resolution to:
"declare the 2020 election results as being “in dispute,” delay the certification of votes from Pennsylvania for both the state and presidential races and asks for the U.S. Congress to also declare the 2020 presidential race to be in dispute."
So it appears that a substantial number of PA legislators are really going to make a serious attempt to overturn the election.
I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that Betfair has not settled yet.
The facts don't matter. Not only Trump - we saw it on here yesterday with the response of people in Scotland to the facts re Scotland's finances. If people are determined to believe something they will believe it.
It looks entirely possible to me that in order to win Biden is going to need the Supreme Court to rule in his favour. Of course they should do, but given the level of partisanship literally anything is possible.
The level of partisanship among judges seems to be close to zero so far - including judges with strong conservative leanings who were appointed by Trump, such as Stephanos Bibas who presented the appeal judgment yesterday. His Wikipedia page says he was a former donor to the Republican party and a former member of the Federalist Society ("an organization of conservatives and libertarians that advocates for a textualist and originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution"). He simply threw the case out as "without merit".
Trump has appointed some real shockers to the bench, whose only place in the courtroom should be the dock, but for the most part his appointees are genuine lawyers as well as ideological conservatives.
Approx 25 Republican legislators in Pennsylvania are supporting a resolution to:
"declare the 2020 election results as being “in dispute,” delay the certification of votes from Pennsylvania for both the state and presidential races and asks for the U.S. Congress to also declare the 2020 presidential race to be in dispute."
So it appears that a substantial number of PA legislators are really going to make a serious attempt to overturn the election.
I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that Betfair has not settled yet.
The facts don't matter. Not only Trump - we saw it on here yesterday with the response of people in Scotland to the facts re Scotland's finances. If people are determined to believe something they will believe it.
It looks entirely possible to me that in order to win Biden is going to need the Supreme Court to rule in his favour. Of course they should do, but given the level of partisanship literally anything is possible.
It’s entirely possible but so are a lot of very unlikely things. Approx 25 state legislators is about one tenth of the total, I think there are some 250 legislators overall in the PA State House and Senate, and about a quarter of the state Republican delegation. They need over 100 just in the House to pass their resolution, more to overturn Tom Wolf’s inevitable veto, and then be able to overcome an inevitable legal challenge. While admittedly the GOP has a majority in both houses many represent districts where such a course of action will not play well - which shows in the fact that they have proudly publicised the support of only 25, not over 100.
Even if they succeed in all that it’s still not enough. If PA flips to Trump then he also needs to flip one or two of AZ, WI and MI as well to get to 270. The news out of WI this morning isn’t exactly looking promising and I haven’t heard a peep out of Arizona for a while.
Well, for many of my patients EHIC is the only way for them to holiday in Europe. It gets perfectly adequate emergency cover in most countries, the same as locals.
Every time I look at the Daily Mail website, there is a story of some feckless person who went to Greece or Bulgaria without medical insurance, was involved in some tragedy or emergency and is now stuck in a hospital bed in some godforsaken remote spot with a broken skull or a liver in traction.
Their relatives are always pleading with the Daily Mail readers to crowdfund a medical plane to take them home from this unhygienic hospital to the NHS in Old Blighty (or sometimes, with a bit more chutzpah, a private hospital for a speedier recovery). "Bring Mum home", they say.
I always wondered why the Daily Mail readership contains so many reckless idiots doing this.
I know now it is you, Dr Foxy, busy advising them.
If you strip the Daily Mail bigotry out of those stories (dirty foreign hospitals run by dirty foreigners vs Our Beloved NHS) is anything actually left? No one ever expected EHIC to repatriate you.
Foxy's original example was a seriously ill cancer patient travelling on an EHIC card.
He didn't say seriously ill, he said had a recent cancer operation, and he was describing rather than recommending. But so what anyway? Are foreign hospitals incapable of treating cancer patients?
Will you not want to be visited as you lie, terminally ill in a cancer ward, in a remote place in Bulgaria?
Because you didn't pay for medical insurance, your relatives now have to fund trips out to the Bulgaria to visit you.
An octogenarian cancer survivor should not be travelling on an EHIC card. That is it.
Funds permitting that is right. But it was free, and a fck of a sight better than nothing, and a particular benefit to the poor.
My kids' comprehensive school organises a skiing trip every year. It's quite cheap as these things go, so as to make it affordable to as wide a group as possible. Our daughter loved it and it was a great opportunity as we will never go skiing as a family as my wife and I have never done it. The kids had to have a EHIC. Presumably they will now need health insurance, one more additional cost putting the trip out of reach of some participants. Just one more small way that Brexit is impoverishing our young people.
Mr. Boy, the EHIC only goes so far. Travel insurance to cover health costs was generally recommended in addition to the health card (or it was some years ago, anyway). Possibly the school covers that, though.
Mr. Boy, the EHIC only goes so far. Travel insurance to cover health costs was generally recommended in addition to the health card (or it was some years ago, anyway). Possibly the school covers that, though.
The trip ran every year without incident so I assume it was adequately covered from an insurance pov. Whatever benefits were conferred by the EHIC will now have to be paid for additionally.
Mr. Boy, the EHIC, from memory, only provides benefits commensurate with a citizen of said country. The example (not skiing, of course) I remember was Greece, whereby individuals get billed if an air ambulance is needed and that can run into thousands.
The EHIC isn't an insurance/healthcare panacea. Handy, but no replacement for travel insurance.
Mr. Boy, the EHIC, from memory, only provides benefits commensurate with a citizen of said country. The example (not skiing, of course) I remember was Greece, whereby individuals get billed if an air ambulance is needed and that can run into thousands.
The EHIC isn't an insurance/healthcare panacea. Handy, but no replacement for travel insurance.
Tell you what, PM me your details and I will send you the bill for the additional health insurance costs next time. It's obviously not a big deal so I am sure you won't mind paying.
Mr. Boy, the EHIC only goes so far. Travel insurance to cover health costs was generally recommended in addition to the health card (or it was some years ago, anyway). Possibly the school covers that, though.
I've had European travel insurance included as a freebie with my current account for a few years, because providing the additional cover required on top of the EHIC is cheap.
On the one occasion that I've had to use medical services in Europe, it was all covered by the EHIC - I didn't need to claim on the insurance.
So your argument is literally true, but also irrelevant. The cost of travel insurance will rise to cover the additional potential health costs. It's a definite downside to Brexit.
Many such downsides will shortly become real and experienced, rather than theoretical. I rather suspect that most of the British public will be too stubborn to change their mind for those reasons though.
Notable that "Brexit Wrong" in the YouGov polling is still only ~50% - barely higher than Remain in 2016.
Alas, all of these little white lies are a function of Johnson’s character. From the very start of this pandemic, the prime minister has confirmed he is temperamentally unsuited to delivering bad news. Instead, he has opted to deliver bad news hopelessly belatedly, and good news self-defeatingly prematurely. The effect is to make people feel constantly cheated, even when the news is better than might have been expected had their expectations been managed more fairly or reasonably. Hence why, up and down the country today, people feel led up the garden path. If they watched Thursday’s Downing Street press conference, they will know to expect more of the same as we move forward. No sooner had Johnson explained how your tier wasn’t your destiny, than chief medical officer for England, Chris Whitty, explained that even the new tier 2 would only hold infections level. Tier 1 would result in a rise.
Naturally, there is a certain irony in seeing Tory MPs who voted for Johnson now outraged to discover that he won’t tell them the truth.
Well, for many of my patients EHIC is the only way for them to holiday in Europe. It gets perfectly adequate emergency cover in most countries, the same as locals.
Every time I look at the Daily Mail website, there is a story of some feckless person who went to Greece or Bulgaria without medical insurance, was involved in some tragedy or emergency and is now stuck in a hospital bed in some godforsaken remote spot with a broken skull or a liver in traction.
Their relatives are always pleading with the Daily Mail readers to crowdfund a medical plane to take them home from this unhygienic hospital to the NHS in Old Blighty (or sometimes, with a bit more chutzpah, a private hospital for a speedier recovery). "Bring Mum home", they say.
I always wondered why the Daily Mail readership contains so many reckless idiots doing this.
I know now it is you, Dr Foxy, busy advising them.
If you strip the Daily Mail bigotry out of those stories (dirty foreign hospitals run by dirty foreigners vs Our Beloved NHS) is anything actually left? No one ever expected EHIC to repatriate you.
Foxy's original example was a seriously ill cancer patient travelling on an EHIC card.
He didn't say seriously ill, he said had a recent cancer operation, and he was describing rather than recommending. But so what anyway? Are foreign hospitals incapable of treating cancer patients?
Will you not want to be visited as you lie, terminally ill in a cancer ward, in a remote place in Bulgaria?
Because you didn't pay for medical insurance, your relatives now have to fund trips out to the Bulgaria to visit you.
An octogenarian cancer survivor should not be travelling on an EHIC card. That is it.
Funds permitting that is right. But it was free, and a fck of a sight better than nothing, and a particular benefit to the poor.
My kids' comprehensive school organises a skiing trip every year. It's quite cheap as these things go, so as to make it affordable to as wide a group as possible. Our daughter loved it and it was a great opportunity as we will never go skiing as a family as my wife and I have never done it. The kids had to have a EHIC. Presumably they will now need health insurance, one more additional cost putting the trip out of reach of some participants. Just one more small way that Brexit is impoverishing our young people.
I taught for over 30 years and have never heard of any school trip abroad which did not have insurance including health cover.
Mr. Boy, the EHIC, from memory, only provides benefits commensurate with a citizen of said country. The example (not skiing, of course) I remember was Greece, whereby individuals get billed if an air ambulance is needed and that can run into thousands.
The EHIC isn't an insurance/healthcare panacea. Handy, but no replacement for travel insurance.
It’s effectively a patch you up and send you home facility, you will get treated outside of that but many people have relied on it illegally, out in Spain and are now panicking that they need to find upwards of 1500 pp to cover residency requirements. Not sure if the two year transition is still available to allow arrangements to be made and cover short term requirements.
Mr. Boy, the EHIC only goes so far. Travel insurance to cover health costs was generally recommended in addition to the health card (or it was some years ago, anyway). Possibly the school covers that, though.
I've had European travel insurance included as a freebie with my current account for a few years, because providing the additional cover required on top of the EHIC is cheap.
On the one occasion that I've had to use medical services in Europe, it was all covered by the EHIC - I didn't need to claim on the insurance.
So your argument is literally true, but also irrelevant. The cost of travel insurance will rise to cover the additional potential health costs. It's a definite downside to Brexit.
Many such downsides will shortly become real and experienced, rather than theoretical. I rather suspect that most of the British public will be too stubborn to change their mind for those reasons though.
Notable that "Brexit Wrong" in the YouGov polling is still only ~50% - barely higher than Remain in 2016.
In addition there are millions of Brits who will now go to Europe a couple of times a year with no health insurance nor adequate savings. The vast majority will be fine, but a few thousand a year will end up with debts they spend many years paying off.
That they "should" take travel insurance, wont stop the reality being that a big proportion wont either through ignorance or the cost. So its not just that tens of millions will be paying fifty to a hundred more for their travel insurance, there will also be thousands who find their financial lives ruined as well.
Well, for many of my patients EHIC is the only way for them to holiday in Europe. It gets perfectly adequate emergency cover in most countries, the same as locals.
Every time I look at the Daily Mail website, there is a story of some feckless person who went to Greece or Bulgaria without medical insurance, was involved in some tragedy or emergency and is now stuck in a hospital bed in some godforsaken remote spot with a broken skull or a liver in traction.
Their relatives are always pleading with the Daily Mail readers to crowdfund a medical plane to take them home from this unhygienic hospital to the NHS in Old Blighty (or sometimes, with a bit more chutzpah, a private hospital for a speedier recovery). "Bring Mum home", they say.
I always wondered why the Daily Mail readership contains so many reckless idiots doing this.
I know now it is you, Dr Foxy, busy advising them.
If you strip the Daily Mail bigotry out of those stories (dirty foreign hospitals run by dirty foreigners vs Our Beloved NHS) is anything actually left? No one ever expected EHIC to repatriate you.
Foxy's original example was a seriously ill cancer patient travelling on an EHIC card.
He didn't say seriously ill, he said had a recent cancer operation, and he was describing rather than recommending. But so what anyway? Are foreign hospitals incapable of treating cancer patients?
Will you not want to be visited as you lie, terminally ill in a cancer ward, in a remote place in Bulgaria?
Because you didn't pay for medical insurance, your relatives now have to fund trips out to the Bulgaria to visit you.
An octogenarian cancer survivor should not be travelling on an EHIC card. That is it.
Funds permitting that is right. But it was free, and a fck of a sight better than nothing, and a particular benefit to the poor.
My kids' comprehensive school organises a skiing trip every year. It's quite cheap as these things go, so as to make it affordable to as wide a group as possible. Our daughter loved it and it was a great opportunity as we will never go skiing as a family as my wife and I have never done it. The kids had to have a EHIC. Presumably they will now need health insurance, one more additional cost putting the trip out of reach of some participants. Just one more small way that Brexit is impoverishing our young people.
I taught for over 30 years and have never heard of any school trip abroad which did not have insurance including health cover.
I am sure they had some cover, but they also insisted that every participant had a EHIC. Presumably that was a requirement of the insurance they had, and insurance absent the EHIC would be more expensive. Or you reckon the whole EHIC requirement was just something they did for a laugh?
Well, for many of my patients EHIC is the only way for them to holiday in Europe. It gets perfectly adequate emergency cover in most countries, the same as locals.
Every time I look at the Daily Mail website, there is a story of some feckless person who went to Greece or Bulgaria without medical insurance, was involved in some tragedy or emergency and is now stuck in a hospital bed in some godforsaken remote spot with a broken skull or a liver in traction.
Their relatives are always pleading with the Daily Mail readers to crowdfund a medical plane to take them home from this unhygienic hospital to the NHS in Old Blighty (or sometimes, with a bit more chutzpah, a private hospital for a speedier recovery). "Bring Mum home", they say.
I always wondered why the Daily Mail readership contains so many reckless idiots doing this.
I know now it is you, Dr Foxy, busy advising them.
If you strip the Daily Mail bigotry out of those stories (dirty foreign hospitals run by dirty foreigners vs Our Beloved NHS) is anything actually left? No one ever expected EHIC to repatriate you.
Foxy's original example was a seriously ill cancer patient travelling on an EHIC card.
He didn't say seriously ill, he said had a recent cancer operation, and he was describing rather than recommending. But so what anyway? Are foreign hospitals incapable of treating cancer patients?
Will you not want to be visited as you lie, terminally ill in a cancer ward, in a remote place in Bulgaria?
Because you didn't pay for medical insurance, your relatives now have to fund trips out to the Bulgaria to visit you.
An octogenarian cancer survivor should not be travelling on an EHIC card. That is it.
Unless they are either very wealthy or beyond caring. Cruise ships have a lot of passengers who objectively shouldn't be travelling due to health, but some of them see it as their last hurrah. A member of staff on the QM2 told me that on their longer cruises it is more unusual for all the passengers to survive to the end, than not. And helicopter evacuations aren't at all rare - I did two transatlantics last year, and we were diverted to rendevous with the heli on one of them. Whether all these people have insurance, I don't know - they ask for your details, but I don't know whether it is a requirement.
Well, for many of my patients EHIC is the only way for them to holiday in Europe. It gets perfectly adequate emergency cover in most countries, the same as locals.
Every time I look at the Daily Mail website, there is a story of some feckless person who went to Greece or Bulgaria without medical insurance, was involved in some tragedy or emergency and is now stuck in a hospital bed in some godforsaken remote spot with a broken skull or a liver in traction.
Their relatives are always pleading with the Daily Mail readers to crowdfund a medical plane to take them home from this unhygienic hospital to the NHS in Old Blighty (or sometimes, with a bit more chutzpah, a private hospital for a speedier recovery). "Bring Mum home", they say.
I always wondered why the Daily Mail readership contains so many reckless idiots doing this.
I know now it is you, Dr Foxy, busy advising them.
If you strip the Daily Mail bigotry out of those stories (dirty foreign hospitals run by dirty foreigners vs Our Beloved NHS) is anything actually left? No one ever expected EHIC to repatriate you.
Foxy's original example was a seriously ill cancer patient travelling on an EHIC card.
He didn't say seriously ill, he said had a recent cancer operation, and he was describing rather than recommending. But so what anyway? Are foreign hospitals incapable of treating cancer patients?
Will you not want to be visited as you lie, terminally ill in a cancer ward, in a remote place in Bulgaria?
Because you didn't pay for medical insurance, your relatives now have to fund trips out to the Bulgaria to visit you.
An octogenarian cancer survivor should not be travelling on an EHIC card. That is it.
Funds permitting that is right. But it was free, and a fck of a sight better than nothing, and a particular benefit to the poor.
My kids' comprehensive school organises a skiing trip every year. It's quite cheap as these things go, so as to make it affordable to as wide a group as possible. Our daughter loved it and it was a great opportunity as we will never go skiing as a family as my wife and I have never done it. The kids had to have a EHIC. Presumably they will now need health insurance, one more additional cost putting the trip out of reach of some participants. Just one more small way that Brexit is impoverishing our young people.
I taught for over 30 years and have never heard of any school trip abroad which did not have insurance including health cover.
I am sure they had some cover, but they also insisted that every participant had a EHIC. Presumably that was a requirement of the insurance they had, and insurance absent the EHIC would be more expensive. Or you reckon the whole EHIC requirement was just something they did for a laugh?
The concept that the cost of travel insurance varies according to what is already provided by the state wont be understood or accepted by many Brexiteers until it happens in practice, if ever.
Well, for many of my patients EHIC is the only way for them to holiday in Europe. It gets perfectly adequate emergency cover in most countries, the same as locals.
Every time I look at the Daily Mail website, there is a story of some feckless person who went to Greece or Bulgaria without medical insurance, was involved in some tragedy or emergency and is now stuck in a hospital bed in some godforsaken remote spot with a broken skull or a liver in traction.
Their relatives are always pleading with the Daily Mail readers to crowdfund a medical plane to take them home from this unhygienic hospital to the NHS in Old Blighty (or sometimes, with a bit more chutzpah, a private hospital for a speedier recovery). "Bring Mum home", they say.
I always wondered why the Daily Mail readership contains so many reckless idiots doing this.
I know now it is you, Dr Foxy, busy advising them.
If you strip the Daily Mail bigotry out of those stories (dirty foreign hospitals run by dirty foreigners vs Our Beloved NHS) is anything actually left? No one ever expected EHIC to repatriate you.
Foxy's original example was a seriously ill cancer patient travelling on an EHIC card.
He didn't say seriously ill, he said had a recent cancer operation, and he was describing rather than recommending. But so what anyway? Are foreign hospitals incapable of treating cancer patients?
Will you not want to be visited as you lie, terminally ill in a cancer ward, in a remote place in Bulgaria?
Because you didn't pay for medical insurance, your relatives now have to fund trips out to the Bulgaria to visit you.
An octogenarian cancer survivor should not be travelling on an EHIC card. That is it.
Funds permitting that is right. But it was free, and a fck of a sight better than nothing, and a particular benefit to the poor.
My kids' comprehensive school organises a skiing trip every year. It's quite cheap as these things go, so as to make it affordable to as wide a group as possible. Our daughter loved it and it was a great opportunity as we will never go skiing as a family as my wife and I have never done it. The kids had to have a EHIC. Presumably they will now need health insurance, one more additional cost putting the trip out of reach of some participants. Just one more small way that Brexit is impoverishing our young people.
I taught for over 30 years and have never heard of any school trip abroad which did not have insurance including health cover.
I am sure they had some cover, but they also insisted that every participant had a EHIC. Presumably that was a requirement of the insurance they had, and insurance absent the EHIC would be more expensive. Or you reckon the whole EHIC requirement was just something they did for a laugh?
The concept that the cost of travel insurance varies according to what is already provided by the state wont be understood or accepted by many Brexiteers until it happens in practice, if ever.
Well, they can't get their head round the idea that the economic costs of leaving far outweigh the benefit of no longer contributing to the EU budget, so I suspect this may be too subtle a point.
Mr. Boy, the EHIC only goes so far. Travel insurance to cover health costs was generally recommended in addition to the health card (or it was some years ago, anyway). Possibly the school covers that, though.
I've had European travel insurance included as a freebie with my current account for a few years, because providing the additional cover required on top of the EHIC is cheap.
On the one occasion that I've had to use medical services in Europe, it was all covered by the EHIC - I didn't need to claim on the insurance.
So your argument is literally true, but also irrelevant. The cost of travel insurance will rise to cover the additional potential health costs. It's a definite downside to Brexit.
Many such downsides will shortly become real and experienced, rather than theoretical. I rather suspect that most of the British public will be too stubborn to change their mind for those reasons though.
Notable that "Brexit Wrong" in the YouGov polling is still only ~50% - barely higher than Remain in 2016.
In addition there are millions of Brits who will now go to Europe a couple of times a year with no health insurance nor adequate savings. The vast majority will be fine, but a few thousand a year will end up with debts they spend many years paying off.
That they "should" take travel insurance, wont stop the reality being that a big proportion wont either through ignorance or the cost. So its not just that tens of millions will be paying fifty to a hundred more for their travel insurance, there will also be thousands who find their financial lives ruined as well.
Approx 25 Republican legislators in Pennsylvania are supporting a resolution to:
"declare the 2020 election results as being “in dispute,” delay the certification of votes from Pennsylvania for both the state and presidential races and asks for the U.S. Congress to also declare the 2020 presidential race to be in dispute."
So it appears that a substantial number of PA legislators are really going to make a serious attempt to overturn the election.
I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that Betfair has not settled yet.
The facts don't matter. Not only Trump - we saw it on here yesterday with the response of people in Scotland to the facts re Scotland's finances. If people are determined to believe something they will believe it.
It looks entirely possible to me that in order to win Biden is going to need the Supreme Court to rule in his favour. Of course they should do, but given the level of partisanship literally anything is possible.
Problems with this: 1) They've got 25 legislators. They need 102. If they had 102 they'd have said so. 2) Even if they had 102, the resolution is non-binding. 3) Even if it was binding, it isn't getting a vote 4) Even if it was getting a vote, it's too late, their terms end on Monday 5) Even if they passed it the governor would veto it 6) Even if the governor didn't veto it the PA supreme court would kill it 7) Even if the PA supreme court didn't kill it they need to do the same in a bunch of other states 8) Even if they did the same in all the other states the best they could do would be to hand the presidency to Nancy Pelosi.
If they uncertify results they also dissolve themselves, also Betfair's rules specifically prohibit nonsense like this.
Approx 25 Republican legislators in Pennsylvania are supporting a resolution to:
"declare the 2020 election results as being “in dispute,” delay the certification of votes from Pennsylvania for both the state and presidential races and asks for the U.S. Congress to also declare the 2020 presidential race to be in dispute."
So it appears that a substantial number of PA legislators are really going to make a serious attempt to overturn the election.
I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that Betfair has not settled yet.
The facts don't matter. Not only Trump - we saw it on here yesterday with the response of people in Scotland to the facts re Scotland's finances. If people are determined to believe something they will believe it.
It looks entirely possible to me that in order to win Biden is going to need the Supreme Court to rule in his favour. Of course they should do, but given the level of partisanship literally anything is possible.
Problems with this: 1) They've got 25 legislators. They need 102. If they had 102 they'd have said so. 2) Even if they had 102, the resolution is non-binding. 3) Even if it was binding, it isn't getting a vote 4) Even if it was getting a vote, it's too late, their terms end on Monday 5) Even if they passed it the governor would veto it 6) Even if the governor didn't veto it the PA supreme court would kill it 7) Even if the PA supreme court didn't kill it they need to do the same in a bunch of other states 8) Even if they did the same in all the other states the best they could do would be to hand the presidency to Nancy Pelosi.
If they uncertify results they also dissolve themselves, also Betfair's rules specifically prohibit nonsense like this.
How do you get to Pelosi?
If there is no legit winner by a certain date (Jan?) the House decides the president basically I think. There is a (1947?) amendment/ruling that there is an order of precedent and Pelosi is top. The Senate would decide the veep.
Mr. Boy, the EHIC only goes so far. Travel insurance to cover health costs was generally recommended in addition to the health card (or it was some years ago, anyway). Possibly the school covers that, though.
I've had European travel insurance included as a freebie with my current account for a few years, because providing the additional cover required on top of the EHIC is cheap.
On the one occasion that I've had to use medical services in Europe, it was all covered by the EHIC - I didn't need to claim on the insurance.
So your argument is literally true, but also irrelevant. The cost of travel insurance will rise to cover the additional potential health costs. It's a definite downside to Brexit.
Many such downsides will shortly become real and experienced, rather than theoretical. I rather suspect that most of the British public will be too stubborn to change their mind for those reasons though.
Notable that "Brexit Wrong" in the YouGov polling is still only ~50% - barely higher than Remain in 2016.
In addition there are millions of Brits who will now go to Europe a couple of times a year with no health insurance nor adequate savings. The vast majority will be fine, but a few thousand a year will end up with debts they spend many years paying off.
That they "should" take travel insurance, wont stop the reality being that a big proportion wont either through ignorance or the cost. So its not just that tens of millions will be paying fifty to a hundred more for their travel insurance, there will also be thousands who find their financial lives ruined as well.
Unless required on entry or booking.
On booking doesn't work - I lot of people cancel it afterwards, just think about Currys and warranties, you sign for it for a discount and cancel it within 14 days to avoid paying for it.
How desperate can unionists get. Dog food salesman spouts crap from a unionist focus group in a 2nd rate rag that is almost bankrupt and has no journalists left. Desperate desperate stuff, only fantasies left.
How desperate can unionists get. Dog food salesman spouts crap from a unionist focus group in a 2nd rate rag that is almost bankrupt and has no journalists left. Desperate desperate stuff, only fantasies left.
Well, that plus an additional councillor in Perth Malcolm.
"The Covid data spies paid to know all your secrets: Town halls harvest millions of highly personal details including if you're being unfaithful or having unsafe sex
A private firm inked deals with local authorities to gather data that can be used to predict who is likely to break lockdown, creating risk analyses for households The system, called Covid OneView, is produced by data analytics firm Xantura Councils said the aim is to help identify those most at risk from coronavirus MPs have said the system lacks transparency and its not clear why so much information about residents' lives was needed"
"The Covid data spies paid to know all your secrets: Town halls harvest millions of highly personal details including if you're being unfaithful or having unsafe sex
A private firm inked deals with local authorities to gather data that can be used to predict who is likely to break lockdown, creating risk analyses for households The system, called Covid OneView, is produced by data analytics firm Xantura Councils said the aim is to help identify those most at risk from coronavirus MPs have said the system lacks transparency and its not clear why so much information about residents' lives was needed"
Approx 25 Republican legislators in Pennsylvania are supporting a resolution to:
"declare the 2020 election results as being “in dispute,” delay the certification of votes from Pennsylvania for both the state and presidential races and asks for the U.S. Congress to also declare the 2020 presidential race to be in dispute."
So it appears that a substantial number of PA legislators are really going to make a serious attempt to overturn the election.
I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that Betfair has not settled yet.
The facts don't matter. Not only Trump - we saw it on here yesterday with the response of people in Scotland to the facts re Scotland's finances. If people are determined to believe something they will believe it.
It looks entirely possible to me that in order to win Biden is going to need the Supreme Court to rule in his favour. Of course they should do, but given the level of partisanship literally anything is possible.
Problems with this: 1) They've got 25 legislators. They need 102. If they had 102 they'd have said so. 2) Even if they had 102, the resolution is non-binding. 3) Even if it was binding, it isn't getting a vote 4) Even if it was getting a vote, it's too late, their terms end on Monday 5) Even if they passed it the governor would veto it 6) Even if the governor didn't veto it the PA supreme court would kill it 7) Even if the PA supreme court didn't kill it they need to do the same in a bunch of other states 8) Even if they did the same in all the other states the best they could do would be to hand the presidency to Nancy Pelosi.
If they uncertify results they also dissolve themselves, also Betfair's rules specifically prohibit nonsense like this.
How do you get to Pelosi?
The Dem House can use all kinds of procedural shenanigans to avoid having a vote on the president. The actual vote if they held it would be down to congressional delegations, which lean GOP, but everything leading up to that point is controlled by a simple majority or the Speaker. Leave it stalled or punted to a committee for long enough and the terms of the President and Vice President both end and Trump and Pence both turn back into pumpkins, at which point Pelosi (or anyone else the Dems might have made Speaker of the House) is the next in the line of succession.
"The Covid data spies paid to know all your secrets: Town halls harvest millions of highly personal details including if you're being unfaithful or having unsafe sex
A private firm inked deals with local authorities to gather data that can be used to predict who is likely to break lockdown, creating risk analyses for households The system, called Covid OneView, is produced by data analytics firm Xantura Councils said the aim is to help identify those most at risk from coronavirus MPs have said the system lacks transparency and its not clear why so much information about residents' lives was needed"
In 2000 there was a dispute in one state, Florida, over one specific, defined, issue, that of the admissibility or otherwise of several hundred ballots. In 2020 what is the state and what is the issue?
How desperate can unionists get. Dog food salesman spouts crap from a unionist focus group in a 2nd rate rag that is almost bankrupt and has no journalists left. Desperate desperate stuff, only fantasies left.
Well, that plus an additional councillor in Perth Malcolm.
Approx 25 Republican legislators in Pennsylvania are supporting a resolution to:
"declare the 2020 election results as being “in dispute,” delay the certification of votes from Pennsylvania for both the state and presidential races and asks for the U.S. Congress to also declare the 2020 presidential race to be in dispute."
So it appears that a substantial number of PA legislators are really going to make a serious attempt to overturn the election.
I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that Betfair has not settled yet.
The facts don't matter. Not only Trump - we saw it on here yesterday with the response of people in Scotland to the facts re Scotland's finances. If people are determined to believe something they will believe it.
It looks entirely possible to me that in order to win Biden is going to need the Supreme Court to rule in his favour. Of course they should do, but given the level of partisanship literally anything is possible.
Problems with this: 1) They've got 25 legislators. They need 102. If they had 102 they'd have said so. 2) Even if they had 102, the resolution is non-binding. 3) Even if it was binding, it isn't getting a vote 4) Even if it was getting a vote, it's too late, their terms end on Monday 5) Even if they passed it the governor would veto it 6) Even if the governor didn't veto it the PA supreme court would kill it 7) Even if the PA supreme court didn't kill it they need to do the same in a bunch of other states 8) Even if they did the same in all the other states the best they could do would be to hand the presidency to Nancy Pelosi.
If they uncertify results they also dissolve themselves, also Betfair's rules specifically prohibit nonsense like this.
How do you get to Pelosi?
If there is no legit winner by a certain date (Jan?) the House decides the president basically I think. There is a (1947?) amendment/ruling that there is an order of precedent and Pelosi is top. The Senate would decide the veep.
Could be interesting...
There's that clause in the constitution where if nobody gets a majority in the electoral college, it does go the House, but with one vote per state, and limited to the top three in the electoral college. But Trump would win that, assuming the Republican state delegations all support him.
Although maybe if Trump and Pence's terms run out without the electoral college process concluding at all, Pelosi would get in as acting president.
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
I do understand the difference and for healthy people they rarely take out health insurance for travel within the EU because the EHIC allows them the same treatment at the same cost as the population in the country they are visiting. It is not free healthcare.
Which of course is another reason the scheme is absurd and not reciprocal, it means that if people travel here and get sick they get the NHS free of charge but if we travel we may end up still needing to pay which people don't realise and can end up very out of pocket from due to failing to get a proper actual insurance.
Abolish EHIC and tell tourists to get insurance. Problem solved.
As I pointed out, many of the poor, poorly and elderly cannot get insurance at an affordable price. They could previously use EHIC to get basic emergency cover, now they cannot.
Emergency care in the public hospitals on the same terms as locals in many EU countries is pretty good, though not universally so.
The alternative for many would be travelling uninsured. It is one way Britons horizons have narrowed with Brexit.
I guess that they will now have to holiday in Tenby or Skegness instead.
If you own a house in Spain, are over 70 with a list of previous conditions the loss of the EHIC card will hit you hard and will get worse the older you get. But the Spanish will replace it if not already done, they are not stupid the holiday industry is in a big enough hole as it is without adding to it. The challenge is to weed out the cheats too young for state care but can’t or won’t afford private cover.
Approx 25 Republican legislators in Pennsylvania are supporting a resolution to:
"declare the 2020 election results as being “in dispute,” delay the certification of votes from Pennsylvania for both the state and presidential races and asks for the U.S. Congress to also declare the 2020 presidential race to be in dispute."
So it appears that a substantial number of PA legislators are really going to make a serious attempt to overturn the election.
I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that Betfair has not settled yet.
The facts don't matter. Not only Trump - we saw it on here yesterday with the response of people in Scotland to the facts re Scotland's finances. If people are determined to believe something they will believe it.
It looks entirely possible to me that in order to win Biden is going to need the Supreme Court to rule in his favour. Of course they should do, but given the level of partisanship literally anything is possible.
Problems with this: 1) They've got 25 legislators. They need 102. If they had 102 they'd have said so. 2) Even if they had 102, the resolution is non-binding. 3) Even if it was binding, it isn't getting a vote 4) Even if it was getting a vote, it's too late, their terms end on Monday 5) Even if they passed it the governor would veto it 6) Even if the governor didn't veto it the PA supreme court would kill it 7) Even if the PA supreme court didn't kill it they need to do the same in a bunch of other states 8) Even if they did the same in all the other states the best they could do would be to hand the presidency to Nancy Pelosi.
If they uncertify results they also dissolve themselves, also Betfair's rules specifically prohibit nonsense like this.
How do you get to Pelosi?
The Dem House can use all kinds of procedural shenanigans to avoid having a vote on the president. The actual vote if they held it would be down to congressional delegations, which lean GOP, but everything leading up to that point is controlled by a simple majority or the Speaker. Leave it stalled or punted to a committee for long enough and the terms of the President and Vice President both end and Trump and Pence both turn back into pumpkins, at which point Pelosi (or anyone else the Dems might have made Speaker of the House) is the next in the line of succession.
Thanks. I suppose at that point the Supreme Court would be trying to compel the House to vote, and of course there'd be riots.
How desperate can unionists get. Dog food salesman spouts crap from a unionist focus group in a 2nd rate rag that is almost bankrupt and has no journalists left. Desperate desperate stuff, only fantasies left.
Well, that plus an additional councillor in Perth Malcolm.
Surge David, sure panic is starting to spread
We all had to listen to how inevitable your victory was for about 2 years before the 2014 referendum Malcolm. So many Nationalists on here were totally certain of the result and it turned out not to be that close. People in Scotland right now are pissed off at the incompetence of the government in Westminster in dealing with Covid and being fed a constant diet of Brexit calamity stories. As the practical realities of Independence come back into focus it will be interesting to see how things go.
Unlike Nationalists I do not have supreme over confidence. But the game's not over either, not by a long shot.
Well, for many of my patients EHIC is the only way for them to holiday in Europe. It gets perfectly adequate emergency cover in most countries, the same as locals.
Every time I look at the Daily Mail website, there is a story of some feckless person who went to Greece or Bulgaria without medical insurance, was involved in some tragedy or emergency and is now stuck in a hospital bed in some godforsaken remote spot with a broken skull or a liver in traction.
Their relatives are always pleading with the Daily Mail readers to crowdfund a medical plane to take them home from this unhygienic hospital to the NHS in Old Blighty (or sometimes, with a bit more chutzpah, a private hospital for a speedier recovery). "Bring Mum home", they say.
I always wondered why the Daily Mail readership contains so many reckless idiots doing this.
I know now it is you, Dr Foxy, busy advising them.
If you strip the Daily Mail bigotry out of those stories (dirty foreign hospitals run by dirty foreigners vs Our Beloved NHS) is anything actually left? No one ever expected EHIC to repatriate you.
Foxy's original example was a seriously ill cancer patient travelling on an EHIC card.
He didn't say seriously ill, he said had a recent cancer operation, and he was describing rather than recommending. But so what anyway? Are foreign hospitals incapable of treating cancer patients?
Will you not want to be visited as you lie, terminally ill in a cancer ward, in a remote place in Bulgaria?
Because you didn't pay for medical insurance, your relatives now have to fund trips out to the Bulgaria to visit you.
An octogenarian cancer survivor should not be travelling on an EHIC card. That is it.
Funds permitting that is right. But it was free, and a fck of a sight better than nothing, and a particular benefit to the poor.
My kids' comprehensive school organises a skiing trip every year. It's quite cheap as these things go, so as to make it affordable to as wide a group as possible. Our daughter loved it and it was a great opportunity as we will never go skiing as a family as my wife and I have never done it. The kids had to have a EHIC. Presumably they will now need health insurance, one more additional cost putting the trip out of reach of some participants. Just one more small way that Brexit is impoverishing our young people.
I taught for over 30 years and have never heard of any school trip abroad which did not have insurance including health cover.
I am sure they had some cover, but they also insisted that every participant had a EHIC. Presumably that was a requirement of the insurance they had, and insurance absent the EHIC would be more expensive. Or you reckon the whole EHIC requirement was just something they did for a laugh?
The concept that the cost of travel insurance varies according to what is already provided by the state wont be understood or accepted by many Brexiteers until it happens in practice, if ever.
Well, they can't get their head round the idea that the economic costs of leaving far outweigh the benefit of no longer contributing to the EU budget, so I suspect this may be too subtle a point.
There have been a couple of conversations here along those lines recently. "We'll just pay to participate in Project X, you don't have to be an EU member... How much are they charging?!" The same goes for the Single Market. The reason that Thatcher pushed for its creation was that it was worth it.
Having started the process wanting a divorce with regular meals and sex continuing, the UK is now discovering how expensive restaurants and prostitutes are.
Comments
Some people worked from home, chilled out and almost enjoyed the quiet. Zoom calls to relatives were fine. A few cancelled holidays to complain about.
Some people were driven to the edge of suicide by the isolation, by the loss of jobs, by the loss of companionship, by the loss of activities around which they'd built their lives.
For some, missing Christmas with the family is a relief
For some, missing Christmas is annoying
For some, missing Christmas is beyond a disaster.
If you travel across Europe then healthcare is categorically 100% not free at the point of use and never has been. I have a friend who at uni broke his leg on a ski holiday in Europe, ended up with a bill running into the many thousands.
I am sure you are about to tell us that you personally "are not afraid of" its abolition. So that's ok.
Emergency care in the public hospitals on the same terms as locals in many EU countries is pretty good, though not universally so.
The alternative for many would be travelling uninsured. It is one way Britons horizons have narrowed with Brexit.
I guess that they will now have to holiday in Tenby or Skegness instead.
If someone travelled here and got sick they could get treated free at the point of use.
If someone here travelled there got sick they could get treated and left with a bill running into many hundreds or thousands.
That is not reciprocal and it is disingenuous to claim it is and has led to many people being left with nasty shocks because they naively believed they were getting NHS free at the point of use medical treatment.
For a young man or woman, the insurance would be (as you originally conceded) just the cost of a meal out.
If you can afford to go to Spain, if you can afford to go out for meals and drinks in Spain, you can afford to pay tens of quid towards proper medical insurance.
I think it is degrading & insulting to the host country for tourism to be done on the cheap by tourists.
It is a matter of proper respect for the country that you are visiting. You are a guest.
Top post. Loads of the Covid related rows on here are simply because people cannot appreciate this.
And the thing is that no one is actually right or wrong in how they feel.
Fight, flight, freeze and feign are deeply embedded neural pathways. We respond to trauma in the way we have been successful in the past.
Which is spot on correct for the individual.
Another chap smashed himself up pretty badly in Spain - similar issues. If he hadn't had insurance, he would have been looking at another mortgage.....
You may dispute the morality and comprehensiveness of using an EHIC card to travel, but the fact is that such a person could, and now they cannot.
I suspect that penny will drop shortly, and your beloved Daily Mail filled with stories of pensioners unable to travel because of the high cost of insurance.
So Tenby it is...
The EHIC ensures that (in the EU) if little Jimmy slips in the kiddie pool and breaks his wrist, he can get treated. Or if you get food poisoning from eating something. Or if something falls of a building and hits you then you medical attention.
If you do not know the difference, then maybe you should stay in the Welsh valleys.
Their average comm rate is about 3% not 5%. Anyone can opt in for 2% if they want it nowadays, not everyone does, you get some sportsbook freebies if you pay a higher rate.
Bets are double counted. If two people back £100 @ evens, its £200 matched but commission is only paid on the winners £100.
Correcting for those reduces your £50m to 0.5*0.6*50 = £15m
However the vast majority of the betting on the market is people trading in and out, not people taking new positions. At a guess this reduces it to £3m-£4m.
And finally, half the trade on the market has been at Biden at very low odds. If someone backs £100 @ 1.1 and wins £10, the commission is on the 3% (on avg) of £10 yet the matched amount goes up by the £200 still.
If Biden wins I would estimate their commission is somewhere around £1.5-2.5m, if Trump wins it will be more, maybe £5m. On sportsbook I don't know how much they will have hedged but without hedging should be winning plenty on Biden.
Because you didn't pay for medical insurance, your relatives now have to fund trips out to the Bulgaria to visit you.
An octogenarian cancer survivor should not be travelling on an EHIC card. That is it.
For example - I have been accused of being unfeeling, in the past, because my response to accident and disaster is to become *less emotional*. For me, Keep Calm and Think are just a natural state. Yet others think that almost evil....
If your response to some things is not scream and wail, they think, you are not human.
Primacy of emotion over physical reality seems... strange to me. So I try to understand it in others.
Not Dinbych-y-pysgod please.
And the reason proper insurance costs £187 is precisely because it is covering the costs the octogenarian could quite foreseeably need to pay which the EHIC simply does not cover. It is apples and oranges.
It was a terrible scheme that left many using it in penury being lumped with bills running into the thousands they couldn't afford and didn't expect as they thought they were "insured".
While also allowing a far more comprehensive free at the point of use medical treatments that we would generously pay for tourists here to get while our citizens got far less comprehensive insurance.
In the end, it was something that we had, that from 1 Jan we will not.
The card was a pleasant substitute for basic insurance for reasonably healthy and/or impecunious people against disasters. It's not controversial to be sorry it's no longer available.
The only time I had an accident was in Switzerland, where my third class (basic, like the EHIC) insurance gave me a room with a mountain view which was far nicer than my hotel room, though there were 3 other beds in it (one occupied). More insurance would have been pointless, unless one hates company.
Perhaps it will return in due course (e.g., Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein or Switzerland are EHIC participants).
I guess there was some excitable over-exaggeration from its supporters as to its value (an old Remainer failing, and one of the reasons why the referendum was lost).
The EHIC was/is certainly not designed to permit octogenarian cancer patients to biff about Europe without proper medical insurance.
"declare the 2020 election results as being “in dispute,” delay the certification of votes from Pennsylvania for both the state and presidential races and asks for the U.S. Congress to also declare the 2020 presidential race to be in dispute."
So it appears that a substantial number of PA legislators are really going to make a serious attempt to overturn the election.
I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that Betfair has not settled yet.
The facts don't matter. Not only Trump - we saw it on here yesterday with the response of people in Scotland to the facts re Scotland's finances. If people are determined to believe something they will believe it.
It looks entirely possible to me that in order to win Biden is going to need the Supreme Court to rule in his favour. Of course they should do, but given the level of partisanship literally anything is possible.
https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/11/27/pennsylvania-republicans-dispute-2020-election-results-resolution/
And this will send a chill through the bones of every punter: 'we have sought advice from leading U.S. lawyers'
Pathetic.
Republicans seem, to me, to fall into three categories:
a) Want Trump to over turn the result and don't give a fuck how he does it.
b) Will indulge him because they think he'll give up eventually and they won't be primaried or possibly shot by the MAGA Army for failing the sacramental test of loyalty (see also Brexit).
c) Think he should concede to Biden.
a + b > c
If he drags this out long enough and starts get some favourable results then b)s will start turning into a)s if they think victory is possible.
1) They've got 25 legislators. They need 102. If they had 102 they'd have said so.
2) Even if they had 102, the resolution is non-binding.
3) Even if it was binding, it isn't getting a vote
4) Even if it was getting a vote, it's too late, their terms end on Monday
5) Even if they passed it the governor would veto it
6) Even if the governor didn't veto it the PA supreme court would kill it
7) Even if the PA supreme court didn't kill it they need to do the same in a bunch of other states
8) Even if they did the same in all the other states the best they could do would be to hand the presidency to Nancy Pelosi.
Going forward as President that is going to be one of the hallmarks and ways in which he begins to turn America around.
He reminds me of Ronald Reagan in comportment. And that's a good thing.
Fortunately we’re only four years into Trumpian takeover of state legislatures and judiciaries.
So there are enough of c to have run relatively honest state elections and counts for the presidency. And insufficient scofflaws on state and federal benches to overturn the result.
He has set a template, along with mistakes to learn from, for how a future election might successfully be stolen.
Joe Biden gains votes in Wisconsin county after Trump-ordered recount
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/28/joe-biden-gains-votes-in-wisconsin-county-after-trump-ordered-recount
Not seeing it.
I mean they always should but you never quite could be sure before something or other reached some Trump appointees.
The sole exception so far looks to be Patricia McCullough with the clear MAGA batsign of attempting to block PA certification.
Be careful what you wish for, eh?
Didn't have any skin in this exact market. My Biden bets, except some hedging, were on Ladbrokes, who took a day or two, which was not bad given some uncertainty.
F1: qualifying starts at 2pm.
i) Stacked SC. I think potentially only Thomas and ACB would chuck Trump the election if push and shove came. Alito is borderline but I think he'd concur with Gorsuch along zealous conservative but not throwing the election lines.
Kavanaugh isn't actually as zealous as the previous four, he may well point out how odd it would appear for the SC to change a result accepted for weeks !
Roberts and the 3 others wouldn't entertain such nonsense at all, Roberts is only interested in skewing the election to the GOP before the vote, and he is no fan of Trump.
The SC is highly conservative stacked but thats different to chucking Trump the election. As said I wouldn't put my life savings on Thomas out of all 9 of them ruling correctly though.
ii) Senate and house majority
iii) Majority or even supermajority legislatures
iv) Governorships
v) Close result in one, maybe two states max.
One sign that the Trump odds are the way they are because Maga punters are dumb as fuck, rather than because these various maneuvers might actually go somewhere, is that we're not hearing about a market somewhere with similar odds on Pelosi.
Even if they succeed in all that it’s still not enough. If PA flips to Trump then he also needs to flip one or two of AZ, WI and MI as well to get to 270. The news out of WI this morning isn’t exactly looking promising and I haven’t heard a peep out of Arizona for a while.
Trump doesn't care about the judges, more just the number of confirmations he has achieved.
None of the judges are Trumpets necessarily, they are all batshit Federalist though.
The EHIC isn't an insurance/healthcare panacea. Handy, but no replacement for travel insurance.
On the one occasion that I've had to use medical services in Europe, it was all covered by the EHIC - I didn't need to claim on the insurance.
So your argument is literally true, but also irrelevant. The cost of travel insurance will rise to cover the additional potential health costs. It's a definite downside to Brexit.
Many such downsides will shortly become real and experienced, rather than theoretical. I rather suspect that most of the British public will be too stubborn to change their mind for those reasons though.
Notable that "Brexit Wrong" in the YouGov polling is still only ~50% - barely higher than Remain in 2016.
Naturally, there is a certain irony in seeing Tory MPs who voted for Johnson now outraged to discover that he won’t tell them the truth.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/27/boris-johnson-false-hope-lockdown-prime-minister-tier-system
That they "should" take travel insurance, wont stop the reality being that a big proportion wont either through ignorance or the cost. So its not just that tens of millions will be paying fifty to a hundred more for their travel insurance, there will also be thousands who find their financial lives ruined as well.
Could be interesting...
Three days in and the Winter Grand plan from SAGE/Hancock is falling to pieces.
"The Science" looking a bit less "The" this morning?
A private firm inked deals with local authorities to gather data that can be used to predict who is likely to break lockdown, creating risk analyses for households
The system, called Covid OneView, is produced by data analytics firm Xantura
Councils said the aim is to help identify those most at risk from coronavirus
MPs have said the system lacks transparency and its not clear why so much information about residents' lives was needed"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8994911/Town-halls-harvest-millions-personal-details-including-youre-unfaithful-debt.html
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1332503966144294912
Although maybe if Trump and Pence's terms run out without the electoral college process concluding at all, Pelosi would get in as acting president.
Unlike Nationalists I do not have supreme over confidence. But the game's not over either, not by a long shot.
'The problem with this country is a lack of rational thought.'
"We'll just pay to participate in Project X, you don't have to be an EU member... How much are they charging?!"
The same goes for the Single Market. The reason that Thatcher pushed for its creation was that it was worth it.
Having started the process wanting a divorce with regular meals and sex continuing, the UK is now discovering how expensive restaurants and prostitutes are.