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?
It isn’t a requirement of the insurance in most cases, but it means you can get emergency treatment for free.
Otherwise the school has to pay the costs upfront and then claim them back via their insurance.
Saves a hell of a lot of time, effort and difficulty in an emergency.
(Leader of 3 trips to the EU in the last six years.)
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 push and shove come, republicans in the house don't get sworn in till after the 20th. SCOTUS has no authority to make Pelosi act faster than that. My guess is the Democrats aren't talking about such a nuclear option because it'd give an excuse to the GOP to use the same procedure if they controlled the house
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.
Pelosi can ignore this. Also it would actually break the whole 'law as it is, not as we wish it to be' that the federalists love to quote'
So many Nationalists on here were totally certain of the result and it turned out not to be that close.
Eh? Was there some secret PB site for over confident Nats of which I was unaware? How many Nats do you think there were on here in the first place for 'many' of them to be sure of the result?
The overnight tweet and apparent comment from Trump indicate that he will seemingly NOT BE LEAVING THE WHITE HOUSE, presumably even if Biden is sworn in. Just see the Army dragging him out. How will Republican voters react to that? Looks like big trouble ahead.
So many Nationalists on here were totally certain of the result and it turned out not to be that close.
Eh? Was there some secret PB site for over confident Nats of which I was unaware? How many Nats do you think there were on here in the first place for 'many' of them to be sure of the result?
From recollection (long time lurker, shorter time poster...sorry “stalker”) there was Malc and James Kelly for a start. I recall other nationalists but they did not, admittedly, always share the same certainty over the outcome
The overnight tweet and apparent comment from Trump indicate that he will seemingly NOT BE LEAVING THE WHITE HOUSE, presumably even if Biden is sworn in. Just see the Army dragging him out. How will Republican voters react to that? Looks like big trouble ahead.
It's unusual to complain on here about posters *not* linking to twitter but please can you do so?
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.
Pelosi can ignore this. Also it would actually break the whole 'law as it is, not as we wish it to be' that the federalists love to quote'
It would certainly be "interesting".
But I don't think there's really a path to throw this to the House in any case, because it's a majority of appointed electors that's required. So you'd either need an outright ECV tie, or some of the appointed electors to not cast their votes or vote for someone other than Biden or Trump. If any states don't appoint electors, the 270 bar would reduce accordingly.
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.
It wouldn't surprise me if the British government rejoined the EHIC scheme. It is of such obvious benefit to both parties.
Rejoining the European mainstream will be by salami slicing of Brexit "sovereignty", at least at first. Whether there is a Deal before Jan 1st, or a period of No Deal for a while first matters little in terms of final destination.
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?
It isn’t a requirement of the insurance in most cases, but it means you can get emergency treatment for free.
Otherwise the school has to pay the costs upfront and then claim them back via their insurance.
Saves a hell of a lot of time, effort and difficulty in an emergency.
(Leader of 3 trips to the EU in the last six years.)
The same applies to individuals too. No upfront costs and no exclusions for pre existing conditions.
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?
It isn’t a requirement of the insurance in most cases, but it means you can get emergency treatment for free.
Otherwise the school has to pay the costs upfront and then claim them back via their insurance.
Saves a hell of a lot of time, effort and difficulty in an emergency.
(Leader of 3 trips to the EU in the last six years.)
You don't think the fact that a load of people will now be claiming for things on their insurance that they didn't previously will lead to an increase in insurance premiums?
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 push and shove come, republicans in the house don't get sworn in till after the 20th. SCOTUS has no authority to make Pelosi act faster than that. My guess is the Democrats aren't talking about such a nuclear option because it'd give an excuse to the GOP to use the same procedure if they controlled the house
No, the new House is sworn on Jan 3rd and counts the EVs (with the Senate) on Jan 6th
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.
It wouldn't surprise me if the British government rejoined the EHIC scheme. It is of such obvious benefit to both parties.
Rejoining the European mainstream will be by salami slicing of Brexit "sovereignty", at least at first. Whether there is a Deal before Jan 1st, or a period of No Deal for a while first matters little in terms of final destination.
I expect on going negotiations over many aspects of our relationship with Europe ending with a closer relationship in years to come but not rejoining as a full member
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...
I was recently collected by a producer at Linate Airport to be driven to Bologna where we were working. He didn't speak a word of English or French and I didn't speak a word of Italian. After half an hour he pointed out of the window and said "San Siro" and I said Oh! The rest of the three hour journey was silent. It's the same thing with Daily Mail readers. There is no common language.
On travel insurance I have never been on holiday without travel insurance and on all the cruises we sailed on the insurer and policy number together with emergency contact details of the insurance was required before I was permitted to make the final payment
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?
It isn’t a requirement of the insurance in most cases, but it means you can get emergency treatment for free.
Otherwise the school has to pay the costs upfront and then claim them back via their insurance.
Saves a hell of a lot of time, effort and difficulty in an emergency.
(Leader of 3 trips to the EU in the last six years.)
You don't think the fact that a load of people will now be claiming for things on their insurance that they didn't previously will lead to an increase in insurance premiums?
I have a modest proposal on the vexed issue of Brexit, which should serve to end the heated arguments on here. Namely, the Political Betting Brexit Compensation Fund (PBBCF). This fund will be established by Leavers with the purpose of compensating Remainers for all costs associated with Brexit. Allowable claims will include, but not be limited to, increased health insurance costs from loss of the EHIC, loss of income associated with job moving to an EU country or being ineligible for EU domiciled jobs, cost of electronic visas (coming soon), inconvenience of long passport queues charged at claimant's hourly wage, additional costs of retirement in EU countries and increased costs for food and cars imported from the EU (especially in no deal scenario). Since Leavers will be flush with cash from no longer competing with Romanians for jobs, not to mention their share of the £350mn/week, I am sure they will be happy to contribute. Then we can all move on. I am happy to administer the fund.
The overnight tweet and apparent comment from Trump indicate that he will seemingly NOT BE LEAVING THE WHITE HOUSE, presumably even if Biden is sworn in. Just see the Army dragging him out. How will Republican voters react to that? Looks like big trouble ahead.
No, Trump confirmed yesterday he would leave the White House in January if the Electoral College voted for Biden on December 14th, once the EC has elected the next President under the US Constitution that cannot be overturned, Biden would be President elect
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?
It isn’t a requirement of the insurance in most cases, but it means you can get emergency treatment for free.
Otherwise the school has to pay the costs upfront and then claim them back via their insurance.
Saves a hell of a lot of time, effort and difficulty in an emergency.
(Leader of 3 trips to the EU in the last six years.)
You don't think the fact that a load of people will now be claiming for things on their insurance that they didn't previously will lead to an increase in insurance premiums?
This is just a fundamental misunderstanding about how Trump is losing, and the issues on which he is losing.
He's not losing on finely balanced, serious points. He's being laughed and scolded out of court by Republican appointed judges who without doubt voted for him.
And the points on which he's losing simply aren't election-changing anyway. They are largely about right to a fuller hearing of his "case" - SCOTUS wouldn't be deciding on the substance of these but on the legal principles (whether he should have a hearing, whether overturning the result would be proportionate if he proved his points and so on).
Additionally, he needs to win multiple times - he has to flip 37 or 38 electoral votes (depending on how you see a Congress-determined election going on which there are differing views) or invalidate 74 or 75 (flipping is incredibly unlikely and invalidating only barely more so).
As I've said from the start, this is all the realm of fantasy (nightmares for fretful Dems, wet dreams for Trump diehards). The only realistic aim here for Trump is to protect his own ego and fanbase by creating a "stab in the back" myth rather than confronting the reality of defeat (which wasn't a landslide but wasn't all that close by historical standards, and was pretty humiliating for a first term President with any self awareness).
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?
It isn’t a requirement of the insurance in most cases, but it means you can get emergency treatment for free.
Otherwise the school has to pay the costs upfront and then claim them back via their insurance.
Saves a hell of a lot of time, effort and difficulty in an emergency.
(Leader of 3 trips to the EU in the last six years.)
You don't think the fact that a load of people will now be claiming for things on their insurance that they didn't previously will lead to an increase in insurance premiums?
For most schools, it probably won’t make a noticeable difference as it’s thrown in as a freebie with their overall insurance, although sometimes it’s included separately in the agency package.
What it will do is make staff much more reluctant to take children on trips abroad in case they find themselves at a hospital with a sick child and forced to pay for treatment on a personal credit card.
Which may mean that all foreign trips have to be led by Heads or Deputy Heads who can authorise spending on a school 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.
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?
It isn’t a requirement of the insurance in most cases, but it means you can get emergency treatment for free.
Otherwise the school has to pay the costs upfront and then claim them back via their insurance.
Saves a hell of a lot of time, effort and difficulty in an emergency.
(Leader of 3 trips to the EU in the last six years.)
You don't think the fact that a load of people will now be claiming for things on their insurance that they didn't previously will lead to an increase in insurance premiums?
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.
It wouldn't surprise me if the British government rejoined the EHIC scheme. It is of such obvious benefit to both parties.
Rejoining the European mainstream will be by salami slicing of Brexit "sovereignty", at least at first. Whether there is a Deal before Jan 1st, or a period of No Deal for a while first matters little in terms of final destination.
I expect on going negotiations over many aspects of our relationship with Europe ending with a closer relationship in years to come but not rejoining as a full member
I think rejoining is some way off, and won't be in the 2024 manifesto of LDs, Tories or Labour. Obviously it will be for SNP and SF. Not sure about PC.
The election after that, quite possibly it will be back on the political agenda, so 10 year minimum before accession talks.
It will be a slow process, coming to terms with the blind alley of Brexit.
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?
It isn’t a requirement of the insurance in most cases, but it means you can get emergency treatment for free.
Otherwise the school has to pay the costs upfront and then claim them back via their insurance.
Saves a hell of a lot of time, effort and difficulty in an emergency.
(Leader of 3 trips to the EU in the last six years.)
You don't think the fact that a load of people will now be claiming for things on their insurance that they didn't previously will lead to an increase in insurance premiums?
For most schools, it probably won’t make a noticeable difference as it’s thrown in as a freebie with their overall insurance, although sometimes it’s included separately in the agency package.
What it will do is make staff much more reluctant to take children on trips abroad in case they find themselves at a hospital with a sick child and forced to pay for treatment on a personal credit card.
Which may mean that all foreign trips have to be led by Heads or Deputy Heads who can authorise spending on a school card.
Or maybe only well heeled private schools will do school trips.
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?
It isn’t a requirement of the insurance in most cases, but it means you can get emergency treatment for free.
Otherwise the school has to pay the costs upfront and then claim them back via their insurance.
Saves a hell of a lot of time, effort and difficulty in an emergency.
(Leader of 3 trips to the EU in the last six years.)
You don't think the fact that a load of people will now be claiming for things on their insurance that they didn't previously will lead to an increase in insurance premiums?
I doubt it will make much difference to be honest
You can be the first contributor to the PBBCF.
I do not suffer from BDS so no
Sad to see you shirking your responsibilities, BG.
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.
It wouldn't surprise me if the British government rejoined the EHIC scheme. It is of such obvious benefit to both parties.
Rejoining the European mainstream will be by salami slicing of Brexit "sovereignty", at least at first. Whether there is a Deal before Jan 1st, or a period of No Deal for a while first matters little in terms of final destination.
I expect on going negotiations over many aspects of our relationship with Europe ending with a closer relationship in years to come but not rejoining as a full member
I think rejoining is some way off, and won't be in the 2024 manifesto of LDs, Tories or Labour. Obviously it will be for SNP and SF. Not sure about PC.
The election after that, quite possibly it will be back on the political agenda, so 10 year minimum before accession talks.
It will be a slow process, coming to terms with the blind alley of Brexit.
For some they will be in a lifetime of mourning but for most life will move on
I do not expect the UK rejoining within my lifetime but then I am elderly
Dr. Foxy, not inconceivable that we could see, a decade down the line, a split between two large camps of Rejoin and a UKIPian outfit, with a small centrist "stay out but foster good relations" group.
Another referendum around 2030ish is not impossible.
This is just a fundamental misunderstanding about how Trump is losing, and the issues on which he is losing.
He's not losing on finely balanced, serious points. He's being laughed and scolded out of court by Republican appointed judges who without doubt voted for him.
And the points on which he's losing simply aren't election-changing anyway. They are largely about right to a fuller hearing of his "case" - SCOTUS wouldn't be deciding on the substance of these but on the legal principles (whether he should have a hearing, whether overturning the result would be proportionate if he proved his points and so on).
Additionally, he needs to win multiple times - he has to flip 37 or 38 electoral votes (depending on how you see a Congress-determined election going on which there are differing views) or invalidate 74 or 75 (flipping is incredibly unlikely and invalidating only barely more so).
As I've said from the start, this is all the realm of fantasy (nightmares for fretful Dems, wet dreams for Trump diehards). The only realistic aim here for Trump is to protect his own ego and fanbase by creating a "stab in the back" myth rather than confronting the reality of defeat (which wasn't a landslide but wasn't all that close by historical standards, and was pretty humiliating for a first term President with any self awareness).
JD Sharp is another of the gooseberries that will have done his money on Trump. Him and Barnes have bet with their putrid MAGA hearts on the election
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?
It isn’t a requirement of the insurance in most cases, but it means you can get emergency treatment for free.
Otherwise the school has to pay the costs upfront and then claim them back via their insurance.
Saves a hell of a lot of time, effort and difficulty in an emergency.
(Leader of 3 trips to the EU in the last six years.)
You don't think the fact that a load of people will now be claiming for things on their insurance that they didn't previously will lead to an increase in insurance premiums?
I doubt it will make much difference to be honest
You can be the first contributor to the PBBCF.
I do not suffer from BDS so no
Sad to see you shirking your responsibilities, BG.
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?
It isn’t a requirement of the insurance in most cases, but it means you can get emergency treatment for free.
Otherwise the school has to pay the costs upfront and then claim them back via their insurance.
Saves a hell of a lot of time, effort and difficulty in an emergency.
(Leader of 3 trips to the EU in the last six years.)
You don't think the fact that a load of people will now be claiming for things on their insurance that they didn't previously will lead to an increase in insurance premiums?
I doubt it will make much difference to be honest
As I gave in my example quote for an 81 year old who had fully recovered, £187 for a week, so already out of range for many.
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?
It isn’t a requirement of the insurance in most cases, but it means you can get emergency treatment for free.
Otherwise the school has to pay the costs upfront and then claim them back via their insurance.
Saves a hell of a lot of time, effort and difficulty in an emergency.
(Leader of 3 trips to the EU in the last six years.)
You don't think the fact that a load of people will now be claiming for things on their insurance that they didn't previously will lead to an increase in insurance premiums?
I doubt it will make much difference to be honest
As I gave in my example quote for an 81 year old who had fully recovered, £187 for a week, so already out of range for many.
I am sure there will be some but the vast majority will see no difference as they always travel with 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.
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?
It isn’t a requirement of the insurance in most cases, but it means you can get emergency treatment for free.
Otherwise the school has to pay the costs upfront and then claim them back via their insurance.
Saves a hell of a lot of time, effort and difficulty in an emergency.
(Leader of 3 trips to the EU in the last six years.)
You don't think the fact that a load of people will now be claiming for things on their insurance that they didn't previously will lead to an increase in insurance premiums?
I doubt it will make much difference to be honest
You can be the first contributor to the PBBCF.
I do not suffer from BDS so no
Sad to see you shirking your responsibilities, BG.
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.
It wouldn't surprise me if the British government rejoined the EHIC scheme. It is of such obvious benefit to both parties.
Rejoining the European mainstream will be by salami slicing of Brexit "sovereignty", at least at first. Whether there is a Deal before Jan 1st, or a period of No Deal for a while first matters little in terms of final destination.
I expect on going negotiations over many aspects of our relationship with Europe ending with a closer relationship in years to come but not rejoining as a full member
I think rejoining is some way off, and won't be in the 2024 manifesto of LDs, Tories or Labour. Obviously it will be for SNP and SF. Not sure about PC.
The election after that, quite possibly it will be back on the political agenda, so 10 year minimum before accession talks.
It will be a slow process, coming to terms with the blind alley of Brexit.
For some they will be in a lifetime of mourning but for most life will move on
I do not expect the UK rejoining within my lifetime but then I am elderly
I don't see the UK rejoining, but I think that Scotland will, and maybe E&W a long way down the road.
I have a modest proposal on the vexed issue of Brexit, which should serve to end the heated arguments on here. Namely, the Political Betting Brexit Compensation Fund (PBBCF). This fund will be established by Leavers with the purpose of compensating Remainers for all costs associated with Brexit. Allowable claims will include, but not be limited to, increased health insurance costs from loss of the EHIC, loss of income associated with job moving to an EU country or being ineligible for EU domiciled jobs, cost of electronic visas (coming soon), inconvenience of long passport queues charged at claimant's hourly wage, additional costs of retirement in EU countries and increased costs for food and cars imported from the EU (especially in no deal scenario). Since Leavers will be flush with cash from no longer competing with Romanians for jobs, not to mention their share of the £350mn/week, I am sure they will be happy to contribute. Then we can all move on. I am happy to administer the fund.
That bolded bit, talk about optimism over experience...
But more seriously where would you put @Hyufd (Remainer to no dealer) and @RochdalePioneers (brexiteer to revoke)?
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?
It isn’t a requirement of the insurance in most cases, but it means you can get emergency treatment for free.
Otherwise the school has to pay the costs upfront and then claim them back via their insurance.
Saves a hell of a lot of time, effort and difficulty in an emergency.
(Leader of 3 trips to the EU in the last six years.)
You don't think the fact that a load of people will now be claiming for things on their insurance that they didn't previously will lead to an increase in insurance premiums?
I doubt it will make much difference to be honest
You can be the first contributor to the PBBCF.
I do not suffer from BDS so no
Sad to see you shirking your responsibilities, BG.
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.
It wouldn't surprise me if the British government rejoined the EHIC scheme. It is of such obvious benefit to both parties.
Rejoining the European mainstream will be by salami slicing of Brexit "sovereignty", at least at first. Whether there is a Deal before Jan 1st, or a period of No Deal for a while first matters little in terms of final destination.
I expect on going negotiations over many aspects of our relationship with Europe ending with a closer relationship in years to come but not rejoining as a full member
I think rejoining is some way off, and won't be in the 2024 manifesto of LDs, Tories or Labour. Obviously it will be for SNP and SF. Not sure about PC.
The election after that, quite possibly it will be back on the political agenda, so 10 year minimum before accession talks.
It will be a slow process, coming to terms with the blind alley of Brexit.
For some they will be in a lifetime of mourning but for most life will move on
I do not expect the UK rejoining within my lifetime but then I am elderly
I don't see the UK rejoining, but I think that Scotland will, and maybe E&W a long way down the road.
To rejoin, an independent Scotland would need its own currency. Even if it goes independent, that’s 15 years off at this moment.
I have a modest proposal on the vexed issue of Brexit, which should serve to end the heated arguments on here. Namely, the Political Betting Brexit Compensation Fund (PBBCF). This fund will be established by Leavers with the purpose of compensating Remainers for all costs associated with Brexit. Allowable claims will include, but not be limited to, increased health insurance costs from loss of the EHIC, loss of income associated with job moving to an EU country or being ineligible for EU domiciled jobs, cost of electronic visas (coming soon), inconvenience of long passport queues charged at claimant's hourly wage, additional costs of retirement in EU countries and increased costs for food and cars imported from the EU (especially in no deal scenario). Since Leavers will be flush with cash from no longer competing with Romanians for jobs, not to mention their share of the £350mn/week, I am sure they will be happy to contribute. Then we can all move on. I am happy to administer the fund.
That bolded bit, talk about optimism over experience...
But more seriously where would you put @Hyufd (Remainer to no dealer) and @RochdalePioneers (brexiteer to revoke)?
I am not No Deal, I want a basic trade deal which I believe Boris will get
I have a modest proposal on the vexed issue of Brexit, which should serve to end the heated arguments on here. Namely, the Political Betting Brexit Compensation Fund (PBBCF). This fund will be established by Leavers with the purpose of compensating Remainers for all costs associated with Brexit. Allowable claims will include, but not be limited to, increased health insurance costs from loss of the EHIC, loss of income associated with job moving to an EU country or being ineligible for EU domiciled jobs, cost of electronic visas (coming soon), inconvenience of long passport queues charged at claimant's hourly wage, additional costs of retirement in EU countries and increased costs for food and cars imported from the EU (especially in no deal scenario). Since Leavers will be flush with cash from no longer competing with Romanians for jobs, not to mention their share of the £350mn/week, I am sure they will be happy to contribute. Then we can all move on. I am happy to administer the fund.
That bolded bit, talk about optimism over experience...
But more seriously where would you put @Hyufd (Remainer to no dealer) and @RochdalePioneers (brexiteer to revoke)?
I would base it on current position, not past repented sins. Supporters of EEA would be treated as Remainers for the purposes of the PBBCF.
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.
It wouldn't surprise me if the British government rejoined the EHIC scheme. It is of such obvious benefit to both parties.
Rejoining the European mainstream will be by salami slicing of Brexit "sovereignty", at least at first. Whether there is a Deal before Jan 1st, or a period of No Deal for a while first matters little in terms of final destination.
I expect on going negotiations over many aspects of our relationship with Europe ending with a closer relationship in years to come but not rejoining as a full member
I think rejoining is some way off, and won't be in the 2024 manifesto of LDs, Tories or Labour. Obviously it will be for SNP and SF. Not sure about PC.
The election after that, quite possibly it will be back on the political agenda, so 10 year minimum before accession talks.
It will be a slow process, coming to terms with the blind alley of Brexit.
For some they will be in a lifetime of mourning but for most life will move on
I do not expect the UK rejoining within my lifetime but then I am elderly
I don't see the UK rejoining, but I think that Scotland will, and maybe E&W a long way down the road.
They won't, at most they will rejoin the single market under a Labour government.
In fact if the Euro becomes a requirement of EU membership I expect Sweden and Denmark would leave the EU for EFTA at that point to, Poland and Hungary might follow
I have a modest proposal on the vexed issue of Brexit, which should serve to end the heated arguments on here. Namely, the Political Betting Brexit Compensation Fund (PBBCF). This fund will be established by Leavers with the purpose of compensating Remainers for all costs associated with Brexit. Allowable claims will include, but not be limited to, increased health insurance costs from loss of the EHIC, loss of income associated with job moving to an EU country or being ineligible for EU domiciled jobs, cost of electronic visas (coming soon), inconvenience of long passport queues charged at claimant's hourly wage, additional costs of retirement in EU countries and increased costs for food and cars imported from the EU (especially in no deal scenario). Since Leavers will be flush with cash from no longer competing with Romanians for jobs, not to mention their share of the £350mn/week, I am sure they will be happy to contribute. Then we can all move on. I am happy to administer the fund.
That bolded bit, talk about optimism over experience...
But more seriously where would you put @Hyufd (Remainer to no dealer) and @RochdalePioneers (brexiteer to revoke)?
I am not No Deal, I want a basic trade deal which I believe Boris will get
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?
It isn’t a requirement of the insurance in most cases, but it means you can get emergency treatment for free.
Otherwise the school has to pay the costs upfront and then claim them back via their insurance.
Saves a hell of a lot of time, effort and difficulty in an emergency.
(Leader of 3 trips to the EU in the last six years.)
You don't think the fact that a load of people will now be claiming for things on their insurance that they didn't previously will lead to an increase in insurance premiums?
I doubt it will make much difference to be honest
You can be the first contributor to the PBBCF.
I do not suffer from BDS so no
Sad to see you shirking your responsibilities, BG.
I have no responsibility - I voted remain
But voted for "Get (Hard) Brexit Done".
The democratic vote you ignore
I supported EEA and other sensible compromises that the Tories voted down.
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...
I was recently collected by a producer at Linate Airport to be driven to Bologna where we were working. He didn't speak a word of English or French and I didn't speak a word of Italian. After half an hour he pointed out of the window and said "San Siro" and I said Oh! The rest of the three hour journey was silent. It's the same thing with Daily Mail readers. There is no common language.
Roger,
That would pass for a lively conversation down my local pub.
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.
It wouldn't surprise me if the British government rejoined the EHIC scheme. It is of such obvious benefit to both parties.
Rejoining the European mainstream will be by salami slicing of Brexit "sovereignty", at least at first. Whether there is a Deal before Jan 1st, or a period of No Deal for a while first matters little in terms of final destination.
I expect on going negotiations over many aspects of our relationship with Europe ending with a closer relationship in years to come but not rejoining as a full member
I think rejoining is some way off, and won't be in the 2024 manifesto of LDs, Tories or Labour. Obviously it will be for SNP and SF. Not sure about PC.
The election after that, quite possibly it will be back on the political agenda, so 10 year minimum before accession talks.
It will be a slow process, coming to terms with the blind alley of Brexit.
For some they will be in a lifetime of mourning but for most life will move on
I do not expect the UK rejoining within my lifetime but then I am elderly
I don't see the UK rejoining, but I think that Scotland will, and maybe E&W a long way down the road.
They won't, at most they will rejoin the single market under a Labour government.
In fact if the Euro becomes a requirement of EU membership I expect Sweden and Denmark would leave the EU for EFTA at that point to, Poland and Hungary might follow
Denmark has a perpetual euro opt out like we did. Joining the euro eventually is already a requirement for Sweden, but it will never be enforced against their will. Get your facts straight.
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...
I was recently collected by a producer at Linate Airport to be driven to Bologna where we were working. He didn't speak a word of English or French and I didn't speak a word of Italian. After half an hour he pointed out of the window and said "San Siro" and I said Oh! The rest of the three hour journey was silent. It's the same thing with Daily Mail readers. There is no common language.
Roger,
That would pass for a lively conversation down by local pub.
Don’t complain, it’s an improvement on the Albanian taxi drivers so beloved of SeanT many completely independent posters on here.
Dr. Foxy, not inconceivable that we could see, a decade down the line, a split between two large camps of Rejoin and a UKIPian outfit, with a small centrist "stay out but foster good relations" group.
Another referendum around 2030ish is not impossible.
The Staying Out movement has got a couple of problems. Neither is insoluble, but they definitely exist. One is that real Brexit can't match everyone's hopes. Hopes don't work like that. The other is that the Baby Boom Brexit Bulge generation won't be around forever. Now if the Uplands genuinely turn out to be sunlit, that's not a problem. But there's a chance (I think quite a big one, but I accept that kilometerages vary) that it's going to be more Shawshank Redemption with more sewerage and less redemption.
Two tentative conclusions. One is that Brexit might turn out to be like the NI peace process- remember how they used to say "Stormont is Sunningdale for slow learners"? So "the UK will never rejoin" seems unlikely. The other is that if I, a random on the internet can work this stuff out, it's odd that the government can't. So ignoring the problems is a matter of will, which tends to be brittle- looking impregnable until it crumbles. A bit like Trump's "I won" mantra.
If the Liberal Democrats are to have a future, they need to start rebuilding at a local level. They need, above all, to build support where they have a chance of winning and accept they shouldn’t waste time pretending to be a national party. If they do that, opinion polls cease to be of real relevance to them.
The snag is that their most fruitful potential areas - slightly left-leaning suburbs who despise the Tories but are suspicious of Labour - are with rare exceptions not areas of traditional strength (Wales, the West Country and the Scottish Highlands have gone and are not returning) so the organisation just isn’t there to pull things round.
Dr. Foxy, not inconceivable that we could see, a decade down the line, a split between two large camps of Rejoin and a UKIPian outfit, with a small centrist "stay out but foster good relations" group.
Another referendum around 2030ish is not impossible.
The Staying Out movement has got a couple of problems. Neither is insoluble, but they definitely exist. One is that real Brexit can't match everyone's hopes. Hopes don't work like that. The other is that the Baby Boom Brexit Bulge generation won't be around forever. Now if the Uplands genuinely turn out to be sunlit, that's not a problem. But there's a chance (I think quite a big one, but I accept that kilometerages vary) that it's going to be more Shawshank Redemption with more sewerage and less redemption.
Two tentative conclusions. One is that Brexit might turn out to be like the NI peace process- remember how they used to say "Stormont is Sunningdale for slow learners"? So "the UK will never rejoin" seems unlikely. The other is that if I, a random on the internet can work this stuff out, it's odd that the government can't. So ignoring the problems is a matter of will, which tends to be brittle- looking impregnable until it crumbles. A bit like Trump's "I won" mantra.
There is a further possible explanations for your last claim - that the government really are that thick.
Mr. Romford, generally, inertia is a powerful force that will aid a situation the longer it lasts. In addition, the EU will integrate more, making it an ever bigger change to rejoin.
I do agree with you that the reality will never satisfy all (perhaps even a majority) of the 52% because there was no specified alternative, it was just in the EU, or not.
Quite a lot could come down to proposed terms. If they were similar/identical to previous ones that's a much easier sell for the pro-EU side. Speaking of which, repeatedly patronising Leavers and seeming, for some, to prefer the UK to fail just so that they can crow about having been right is neither a good look nor smart politics. Those who actually want us to rejoin (or have closer relations with the EU) would be advised to start thinking about positively making the case and engaging with the electorate.
Sceptics would also be well-served by not forgetting that political destinies aren't written in stone.
Dr. Foxy, not inconceivable that we could see, a decade down the line, a split between two large camps of Rejoin and a UKIPian outfit, with a small centrist "stay out but foster good relations" group.
Another referendum around 2030ish is not impossible.
The Staying Out movement has got a couple of problems. Neither is insoluble, but they definitely exist. One is that real Brexit can't match everyone's hopes. Hopes don't work like that. The other is that the Baby Boom Brexit Bulge generation won't be around forever. Now if the Uplands genuinely turn out to be sunlit, that's not a problem. But there's a chance (I think quite a big one, but I accept that kilometerages vary) that it's going to be more Shawshank Redemption with more sewerage and less redemption.
Two tentative conclusions. One is that Brexit might turn out to be like the NI peace process- remember how they used to say "Stormont is Sunningdale for slow learners"? So "the UK will never rejoin" seems unlikely. The other is that if I, a random on the internet can work this stuff out, it's odd that the government can't. So ignoring the problems is a matter of will, which tends to be brittle- looking impregnable until it crumbles. A bit like Trump's "I won" mantra.
There is a further possible explanations for your last claim - that the government really are that thick.
True. DD probably was that thick. Raab and Patel are clearly not the sharpest pencils in the box. Johnson and JRM choose to be ignorant. Dom was mad.
But Gove, ghastly as he is, isn't stupid. And Sunak clearly has the brains and knowledge to understand, but goes along with it. In many ways, that's worse.
Dr. Foxy, not inconceivable that we could see, a decade down the line, a split between two large camps of Rejoin and a UKIPian outfit, with a small centrist "stay out but foster good relations" group.
Another referendum around 2030ish is not impossible.
If the EU have any sense, they'll require a two thirds majority on any such referendum before considering the application, to reduce the chances of a repeat of the Brexit psychodrama a few more years down the line. Another 52-48 majority would probably disappear during the negotiations again.
An interesting theoretical question is whether the right strategy from here is to disband?
It would allow centrists (accepting not all LDs are centrists but the majority are I think?) to gain a bit more influence in the two big parties.
Once they failed to stand up for their real successes in the Cameron Clegg coalition, how can any coalition both work and be seen as a success in the future? If it cant, then what is the point of the LDs?
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.
Pelosi can ignore this. Also it would actually break the whole 'law as it is, not as we wish it to be' that the federalists love to quote'
It would certainly be "interesting".
But I don't think there's really a path to throw this to the House in any case, because it's a majority of appointed electors that's required. So you'd either need an outright ECV tie, or some of the appointed electors to not cast their votes or vote for someone other than Biden or Trump. If any states don't appoint electors, the 270 bar would reduce accordingly.
Theoretically the process whereby we get Acting President Pelosi (and the modifier is significant) would be for every state’s electoral votes to be thrown out by Congress when it counts them on Jan 6th, or for the counting process to be still ongoing when Jan 20th comes around. A state or DC’s votes, can be discarded if at least one Representative and one Senator raise an objection when the outgoing Vice-President reads the return from that state. If that happens, then the two houses separately retire to debate the issue and only if both agree to toss that state’s result does that happen. Similarly if two conflicting returns are presented, one from the executive and one from the legislature (or some other authority, e.g. state supreme court) of a state, then both houses must separately opt for the legislature’s version otherwise the executive’s version prevails.
So in the highly unlikely even that if the Republicans do manage to get sufficient state legislatures to flip their EVs for Trump to win, then io get to Acting President Pelosi, it would require the Congress to successfully go through the rejection process for every single state and DC and so no electoral votes at all are counted. If no EVs are counted then no contingent elections can take place in the House for the President and Senate for VP. Clearly that’s not going to happen, but if it did, I don’t think there’s any way to re-start the counting process, so Nancy Pelosi would be Acting President for a full term.
Very slightly more likely would be that sufficient cycles of objection and debate of specific state results undertaken so slowly that the counting process drags on until Jan 20th in which case Pelosi would be Acting President only until the count is complete.
The only scenario I can realistically see where the rejection of electoral votes from any state actually occurs would be if the Republicans do manage to get state legislatures to try to flip their state's results. Leaving aside all the procedural and constitutional barriers to tha actually happeningt, then it would still require both houses to reject such returns. That would favour the Republicans slightly, but only if the state executives in question have signed off on the legislature’s attempted override.
Of the close Biden win states, only Arizona and Georgia have Republican governors that might conceivably go along with such a coup by their legislature, That would only flip at most 27 EVs to Trump out of Biden’s projected winning margin of 37. The governors of Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are all Democrats, which means even if the legislatures of those states sent divergent returns of EVs for Trump, the two houses would have to agree to accept them over those for Biden returned by the governors.
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.
Yes for sure , not sure I know anyone who is over confident though. The trend is very clear however and if you were a betting man the union would not be your best option. Need to be a sea change in my opinion to turn it round and as things are just going to get worse it will be even easier decision as it will be impossible to be any worse and even those worrying about a fiver will see no impact. PS: you forget the last minute panic and lies, wheeling out the queen etc as it looked like the unionists may lose.
An interesting theoretical question is whether the right strategy from here is to disband?
It would allow centrists (accepting not all LDs are centrists but the majority are I think?) to gain a bit more influence in the two big parties.
Once they failed to stand up for their real successes in the Cameron Clegg coalition, how can any coalition both work and be seen as a success in the future? If it cant, then what is the point of the LDs?
The point is they are not part of the totally corrupt so called big parties. Just wait till May we’ll be back. To be honest there is no point in labour at the moment or any other party apart from UKIP lite.
So many Nationalists on here were totally certain of the result and it turned out not to be that close.
Eh? Was there some secret PB site for over confident Nats of which I was unaware? How many Nats do you think there were on here in the first place for 'many' of them to be sure of the result?
From recollection (long time lurker, shorter time poster...sorry “stalker”) there was Malc and James Kelly for a start. I recall other nationalists but they did not, admittedly, always share the same certainty over the outcome
Yes and it was a close finish woith only the blatant lie that they would have a federal state and transfer powers that swung it in the end, 5% is not a huge margin.
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?
It isn’t a requirement of the insurance in most cases, but it means you can get emergency treatment for free.
Otherwise the school has to pay the costs upfront and then claim them back via their insurance.
Saves a hell of a lot of time, effort and difficulty in an emergency.
(Leader of 3 trips to the EU in the last six years.)
You don't think the fact that a load of people will now be claiming for things on their insurance that they didn't previously will lead to an increase in insurance premiums?
For most schools, it probably won’t make a noticeable difference as it’s thrown in as a freebie with their overall insurance, although sometimes it’s included separately in the agency package.
What it will do is make staff much more reluctant to take children on trips abroad in case they find themselves at a hospital with a sick child and forced to pay for treatment on a personal credit card.
Which may mean that all foreign trips have to be led by Heads or Deputy Heads who can authorise spending on a school card.
I had to do that in Iceland once. The treatment was only about £50, but the cost of the two hotel rooms for two nights was a lot more. What I do remember was the surprise on the part of the hospital receptionist who was organising the accommodation for us that I refused to share a room with the injured pupil, even though that would have been much cheaper.
So many Nationalists on here were totally certain of the result and it turned out not to be that close.
Eh? Was there some secret PB site for over confident Nats of which I was unaware? How many Nats do you think there were on here in the first place for 'many' of them to be sure of the result?
From recollection (long time lurker, shorter time poster...sorry “stalker”) there was Malc and James Kelly for a start. I recall other nationalists but they did not, admittedly, always share the same certainty over the outcome
Yes and it was a close finish woith only the blatant lie that they would have a federal state and transfer powers that swung it in the end, 5% is not a huge margin.
Sorry, Malc, but it is; represents the overwhelming wish of the Scottish people.
Wasn't there a paper last week from China saying they tested millions and found no asymptomatic transfer of the virus?
"The Science" looking a bit less "The" this morning?
The Chinese paper, while published last week, was from a study in the spring of this year. It was about those who remained asymptomatic, NOT those who were presymptomatic, for whom viral levels peak before they become symptomatic.
That is not even controversial, so no, it’s not looking a bit less anything.
Moreover, the Chinese study had substantial limitations (which were noted in the paper). I posted a link and the details earlier this week sometime.
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?
It isn’t a requirement of the insurance in most cases, but it means you can get emergency treatment for free.
Otherwise the school has to pay the costs upfront and then claim them back via their insurance.
Saves a hell of a lot of time, effort and difficulty in an emergency.
(Leader of 3 trips to the EU in the last six years.)
You don't think the fact that a load of people will now be claiming for things on their insurance that they didn't previously will lead to an increase in insurance premiums?
For most schools, it probably won’t make a noticeable difference as it’s thrown in as a freebie with their overall insurance, although sometimes it’s included separately in the agency package.
What it will do is make staff much more reluctant to take children on trips abroad in case they find themselves at a hospital with a sick child and forced to pay for treatment on a personal credit card.
Which may mean that all foreign trips have to be led by Heads or Deputy Heads who can authorise spending on a school card.
I had to do that in Iceland once. The treatment was only about £50, but the cost of the two hotel rooms for two nights was a lot more. What I do remember was the surprise on the part of the hospital receptionist who was organising the accommodation for us that I refused to share a room with the injured pupil, even though that would have been much cheaper.
I see we are still talking about health insurance vs EHIC.
The EHIC is great if you are going to Europe but anyone doing so without health insurance as well is bonkers, particularly if skiing.
Of course you should have your EHIC but it won't cover the following:
a) the helicopter or blood wagon to get you off the slopes b) the cost of private treatment if they do not recognise the EHIC (I was taken to a private clinic, my EHIC was useless there and I wasn't in a position to be carted off to one that did so I had to pay for my treatment and x-rays without any recovery from EHIC) c) Cost of an air ambulance or road ambulance to get you home.
All of these costs could run in to tens of thousands of pounds.
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.
This is just a fundamental misunderstanding about how Trump is losing, and the issues on which he is losing.
He's not losing on finely balanced, serious points. He's being laughed and scolded out of court by Republican appointed judges who without doubt voted for him.
And the points on which he's losing simply aren't election-changing anyway. They are largely about right to a fuller hearing of his "case" - SCOTUS wouldn't be deciding on the substance of these but on the legal principles (whether he should have a hearing, whether overturning the result would be proportionate if he proved his points and so on).
Additionally, he needs to win multiple times - he has to flip 37 or 38 electoral votes (depending on how you see a Congress-determined election going on which there are differing views) or invalidate 74 or 75 (flipping is incredibly unlikely and invalidating only barely more so).
As I've said from the start, this is all the realm of fantasy (nightmares for fretful Dems, wet dreams for Trump diehards). The only realistic aim here for Trump is to protect his own ego and fanbase by creating a "stab in the back" myth rather than confronting the reality of defeat (which wasn't a landslide but wasn't all that close by historical standards, and was pretty humiliating for a first term President with any self awareness).
There is another massive difference - Gore conceded the election. He didn’t have to (and, of course, had massively better justification than Trump for doing so). He could, as Trump has done, launched further lawsuits. And would not have been without evidence and arguments.
He did not, as he isn’t, as Trump is, an incipient Fascist.
Comments
Otherwise the school has to pay the costs upfront and then claim them back via their insurance.
Saves a hell of a lot of time, effort and difficulty in an emergency.
(Leader of 3 trips to the EU in the last six years.)
SCOTUS has no authority to make Pelosi act faster than that.
My guess is the Democrats aren't talking about such a nuclear option because it'd give an excuse to the GOP to use the same procedure if they controlled the house
But I don't think there's really a path to throw this to the House in any case, because it's a majority of appointed electors that's required. So you'd either need an outright ECV tie, or some of the appointed electors to not cast their votes or vote for someone other than Biden or Trump. If any states don't appoint electors, the 270 bar would reduce accordingly.
Rejoining the European mainstream will be by salami slicing of Brexit "sovereignty", at least at first. Whether there is a Deal before Jan 1st, or a period of No Deal for a while first matters little in terms of final destination.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1332613713053016064?s=19
I am happy to administer the fund.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-55096851
He's not losing on finely balanced, serious points. He's being laughed and scolded out of court by Republican appointed judges who without doubt voted for him.
And the points on which he's losing simply aren't election-changing anyway. They are largely about right to a fuller hearing of his "case" - SCOTUS wouldn't be deciding on the substance of these but on the legal principles (whether he should have a hearing, whether overturning the result would be proportionate if he proved his points and so on).
Additionally, he needs to win multiple times - he has to flip 37 or 38 electoral votes (depending on how you see a Congress-determined election going on which there are differing views) or invalidate 74 or 75 (flipping is incredibly unlikely and invalidating only barely more so).
As I've said from the start, this is all the realm of fantasy (nightmares for fretful Dems, wet dreams for Trump diehards). The only realistic aim here for Trump is to protect his own ego and fanbase by creating a "stab in the back" myth rather than confronting the reality of defeat (which wasn't a landslide but wasn't all that close by historical standards, and was pretty humiliating for a first term President with any self awareness).
What it will do is make staff much more reluctant to take children on trips abroad in case they find themselves at a hospital with a sick child and forced to pay for treatment on a personal credit card.
Which may mean that all foreign trips have to be led by Heads or Deputy Heads who can authorise spending on a school card.
'There's something about Benny'
https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1332371162341515267?s=19
The election after that, quite possibly it will be back on the political agenda, so 10 year minimum before accession talks.
It will be a slow process, coming to terms with the blind alley of Brexit.
I do not expect the UK rejoining within my lifetime but then I am elderly
Another referendum around 2030ish is not impossible.
Him and Barnes have bet with their putrid MAGA hearts on the election
But more seriously where would you put @Hyufd (Remainer to no dealer) and @RochdalePioneers (brexiteer to revoke)?
In fact if the Euro becomes a requirement of EU membership I expect Sweden and Denmark would leave the EU for EFTA at that point to, Poland and Hungary might follow
That would pass for a lively conversation down my local pub.
SeanTmany completely independent posters on here.One is that real Brexit can't match everyone's hopes. Hopes don't work like that. The other is that the Baby Boom Brexit Bulge generation won't be around forever.
Now if the Uplands genuinely turn out to be sunlit, that's not a problem. But there's a chance (I think quite a big one, but I accept that kilometerages vary) that it's going to be more Shawshank Redemption with more sewerage and less redemption.
Two tentative conclusions. One is that Brexit might turn out to be like the NI peace process- remember how they used to say "Stormont is Sunningdale for slow learners"? So "the UK will never rejoin" seems unlikely. The other is that if I, a random on the internet can work this stuff out, it's odd that the government can't. So ignoring the problems is a matter of will, which tends to be brittle- looking impregnable until it crumbles. A bit like Trump's "I won" mantra.
The snag is that their most fruitful potential areas - slightly left-leaning suburbs who despise the Tories but are suspicious of Labour - are with rare exceptions not areas of traditional strength (Wales, the West Country and the Scottish Highlands have gone and are not returning) so the organisation just isn’t there to pull things round.
I do agree with you that the reality will never satisfy all (perhaps even a majority) of the 52% because there was no specified alternative, it was just in the EU, or not.
Quite a lot could come down to proposed terms. If they were similar/identical to previous ones that's a much easier sell for the pro-EU side. Speaking of which, repeatedly patronising Leavers and seeming, for some, to prefer the UK to fail just so that they can crow about having been right is neither a good look nor smart politics. Those who actually want us to rejoin (or have closer relations with the EU) would be advised to start thinking about positively making the case and engaging with the electorate.
Sceptics would also be well-served by not forgetting that political destinies aren't written in stone.
DD probably was that thick. Raab and Patel are clearly not the sharpest pencils in the box. Johnson and JRM choose to be ignorant. Dom was mad.
But Gove, ghastly as he is, isn't stupid. And Sunak clearly has the brains and knowledge to understand, but goes along with it. In many ways, that's worse.
It would allow centrists (accepting not all LDs are centrists but the majority are I think?) to gain a bit more influence in the two big parties.
Once they failed to stand up for their real successes in the Cameron Clegg coalition, how can any coalition both work and be seen as a success in the future? If it cant, then what is the point of the LDs?
stood for election in Glasgow as a Unionist
So in the highly unlikely even that if the Republicans do manage to get sufficient state legislatures to flip their EVs for Trump to win, then io get to Acting President Pelosi, it would require the Congress to successfully go through the rejection process for every single state and DC and so no electoral votes at all are counted. If no EVs are counted then no contingent elections can take place in the House for the President and Senate for VP. Clearly that’s not going to happen, but if it did, I don’t think there’s any way to re-start the counting process, so Nancy Pelosi would be Acting President for a full term.
Very slightly more likely would be that sufficient cycles of objection and debate of specific state results undertaken so slowly that the counting process drags on until Jan 20th in which case Pelosi would be Acting President only until the count is complete.
The only scenario I can realistically see where the rejection of electoral votes from any state actually occurs would be if the Republicans do manage to get state legislatures to try to flip their state's results. Leaving aside all the procedural and constitutional barriers to tha actually happeningt, then it would still require both houses to reject such returns. That would favour the Republicans slightly, but only if the state executives in question have signed off on the legislature’s attempted override.
Of the close Biden win states, only Arizona and Georgia have Republican governors that might conceivably go along with such a coup by their legislature, That would only flip at most 27 EVs to Trump out of Biden’s projected winning margin of 37. The governors of Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are all Democrats, which means even if the legislatures of those states sent divergent returns of EVs for Trump, the two houses would have to agree to accept them over those for Biden returned by the governors.
PS: you forget the last minute panic and lies, wheeling out the queen etc as it looked like the unionists may lose.
I'm sure all those people who wanted similar in England will now be accepting they were wrong and that the Westminster government was right.
What I do remember was the surprise on the part of the hospital receptionist who was organising the accommodation for us that I refused to share a room with the injured pupil, even though that would have been much cheaper.
Must do if 52-48 is that for leaving the EU!
It was about those who remained asymptomatic, NOT those who were presymptomatic, for whom viral levels peak before they become symptomatic.
That is not even controversial, so no, it’s not looking a bit less anything.
Moreover, the Chinese study had substantial limitations (which were noted in the paper). I posted a link and the details earlier this week sometime.
The EHIC is great if you are going to Europe but anyone doing so without health insurance as well is bonkers, particularly if skiing.
Of course you should have your EHIC but it won't cover the following:
a) the helicopter or blood wagon to get you off the slopes
b) the cost of private treatment if they do not recognise the EHIC (I was taken to a private clinic, my EHIC was useless there and I wasn't in a position to be carted off to one that did so I had to pay for my treatment and x-rays without any recovery from EHIC)
c) Cost of an air ambulance or road ambulance to get you home.
All of these costs could run in to tens of thousands of pounds.
Though it would keep them awfully busy.
He didn’t have to (and, of course, had massively better justification than Trump for doing so).
He could, as Trump has done, launched further lawsuits. And would not have been without evidence and arguments.
He did not, as he isn’t, as Trump is, an incipient Fascist.