politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The latest Farage farrago, Douglas Carswell is accused of h

Second like Labour Farage!

kle4 said:

Nice Jane Grey reference.

Yebbut was Suzanne ever UKIP leader for only 9 days?

It so jam packed in here I can't post....

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

Nice Jane Grey reference.

With my expert and detailed knowledge of all eras of history, I try and get in as many historical references into threads as possible.

Is my way of helping those PBers like Morris Dancer who lack such detailed knowledge.

Yebbut was Suzanne ever UKIP leader for only 9 days?

Farage came to within 3,000 votes, but it wasn't enough.

Had he been up against a Europhile Tory and slightly less polarising he could have won on the day - just.

What I find interesting about South Thanet is how well the Labour vote held up given it was a two-horse race.

On topic, the specials markets are crap for value at the moment. No bet for me.

I'll start to put money into the next GE market on Tories most seats next year, probably as soon as article 50 strategy becomes clear.

I view it as a 3 year savings plan.

MontyHall said:

"Given the time constraints it is no bet for me"

Its's only 4 months isn't it? People have been betting on the next President/Next Lab Leader etc for much longer than that.

I would be interested what people think the correct prices for Clacton at the next GE are?

The time constraints as in he has to resign the whip in 2016, he could do in 2017 but the bet wouldn't pay out.

If the bet was he would resign the UKIP whip in this parliament, I'd be interested.

MontyHall said:

"Given the time constraints it is no bet for me"

Its's only 4 months isn't it?

I think that is the problem with the bet though, Carswell to leave in 2016/17 wouldbe a more interesting proposition, unlikely he will do so in 2016. Not the time value of money over 4 months..

Farage was brilliant at the Trump rally wasn't he.

Casino_Royale said:

Farage came to within 3,000 votes, but it wasn't enough.

Had he been up against a Europhile Tory and slightly less polarising he could have won on the day - just.

What I find interesting about South Thanet is how well the Labour vote held up given it was a two-horse race.

Mr Royale, I am sure what sunk Farage at the GE and, indeed, UKIP in several other constituencies was that poster of Milliband in Salmond's top pocket. As political campaigning goes that was pure genius.

"Sorry, Nige, I think you are correct but I can't risk it", was I think the sentiment that saved several Conservative seats.

MontyHall said:

Patrick said:

tlg86 said:

PB before the referendum: Farage, Banks and Leave.EU are complete idiots and they will lose the referendum for Leave.

PB after the referendum: Farage, Banks and Leave.EU were not important in the referendum.

I would, if asked, have recalled the PB consensus at the time to be:
Farage: Massive personal influence on the Brexit outcome, if occasionally crass
Banks: Who?
Leave.EU:who?

I thought PB was saying Farage should be locked in a cupboard etc ie kept away from any media as he was toxic

Maybe Leave would have won by more if he had been!

Quite. Everytime Farage was on TV it was a disaster for Leave. Apparently.

HurstLlama said:

FPT

Mr Charles, made a point about how a private health insurer suddenly and unilaterally withdrew cover, once it was clear to them that they would have to pay out. The good FoxinSox, medicus of this parish, has mentioned several times that insurance companies will not cover existing conditions and can get very snotty about chronic conditions.

It seems to me that private companies would have to be very heavily regulated if they are ever going to be used to assist in the funding of the NHS, so much so that they would either refuse the business or charge extraordinary premiums. Yet the idea of PMI is constantly pushed as the solution the problem that the NHS, as it stands, is unaffordable and unsustainable.

The other related problem to that solution is that the big users of the NHS are those of us richer in years, often with chronic conditions, who the insurers will not touch with a bargepole.

In all honesty I can't see a better way out of this mess than to make the state the insurer but not the provider. Set the hospitals loose, the patient can choose which one they want, they can choose which quack, surgeon, consultant they want but the insurer picks up the bills (which because the hospitals and quacks are all competing for custom ought to come down).

I think that to have the state as insurer of last resort is essential. There simply are a lot of people and conditions that are not insurable. It doesn't have to be a single system though, and I would personally be happy with a German style system where different companies have different levels of cover above the minimum threshold. A sort of "Speedy Boarding" supplement for example.

There are significant difficulties with consumerism in healthcare though, in particular what people want is often not what they need. Over-investigation and unnessecary interventions (often with significant iatrogenic morbidity) are near universal in such health care systems.

Omnishambles Games continues...this time probably not 100% Rio's fault.

Kenyan athletes are stranded in a Rio shanty town where gunshots can be heard, following the closure of the Olympic village, the team captain says. Officials delayed their return home as they looked for a "cheap flight", said Wesley Korir, a marathon runner who is also an independent MP.

He posted images on Twitter of dilapidated buildings in the area where he said they were forced to stay. Team Kenya has been dogged by allegations of mismanagement at Rio.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-37183703

What has happened to the police investigations re Con election expenses at GE 2015?

There was a lot of talk back around May when police had to apply for time extensions as one year after GE.

Since then - total silence - and quite a while has gone by - nearly another four months.

MikeL said:

What has happened to the police investigations re Con election expenses at GE 2015?

There was a lot of talk back around May when police had to apply for time extensions as one year after GE.

Since then - total silence - and quite a while has gone by - nearly another four months.

The plod are now busy looking at Labour MPs now as well...

John_M said:

Patrick said:

tlg86 said:

PB before the referendum: Farage, Banks and Leave.EU are complete idiots and they will lose the referendum for Leave.

PB after the referendum: Farage, Banks and Leave.EU were not important in the referendum.

I would, if asked, have recalled the PB consensus at the time to be:
Farage: Massive personal influence on the Brexit outcome, if occasionally crass
Banks: Who?
Leave.EU:who?

We can only relate anecdotes. I credit Farage for pushing Cameron into offering EUref in the first place. Obviously, he also got the UKIP vote out. However, I thought his contribution to the campaign itself, in terms of floating voters was, at best, neutral.

As I've said repeatedly, both sides were terrible. I didn't really differentiate between Vote Leave and Leave.EU. Their messages on the EU contribution and Turkey were shit.

Messages can be both shit and effective. Farage's immigration poster seems, from a distance, to have had a significant impact on the trajectory of the campaign.

foxinsoxuk said:

HurstLlama said:

FPT

Mr Charles, made a point about how a private health insurer suddenly and unilaterally withdrew cover, once it was clear to them that they would have to pay out. The good FoxinSox, medicus of this parish, has mentioned several times that insurance companies will not cover existing conditions and can get very snotty about chronic conditions.

It seems to me that private companies would have to be very heavily regulated if they are ever going to be used to assist in the funding of the NHS, so much so that they would either refuse the business or charge extraordinary premiums. Yet the idea of PMI is constantly pushed as the solution the problem that the NHS, as it stands, is unaffordable and unsustainable.

The other related problem to that solution is that the big users of the NHS are those of us richer in years, often with chronic conditions, who the insurers will not touch with a bargepole.

In all honesty I can't see a better way out of this mess than to make the state the insurer but not the provider. Set the hospitals loose, the patient can choose which one they want, they can choose which quack, surgeon, consultant they want but the insurer picks up the bills (which because the hospitals and quacks are all competing for custom ought to come down).

I think that to have the state as insurer of last resort is essential. There simply are a lot of people and conditions that are not insurable. It doesn't have to be a single system though, and I would personally be happy with a German style system where different companies have different levels of cover above the minimum threshold. A sort of "Speedy Boarding" supplement for example.

There are significant difficulties with consumerism in healthcare though, in particular what people want is often not what they need. Over-investigation and unnessecary interventions (often with significant iatrogenic morbidity) are near universal in such health care systems.

i've had a barium meal every year for about the last 10 years, I guess a third of that would have been plenty.

japanese company screening for stomach cancer (?probably)

i know it's unecessary, but it is somehow hard to refuse...

having said that, blood tests in the same health check convinced me to signif. reduce my alchohol intake...

John_M said:

foxinsoxuk said:

HurstLlama said:

FPT

Mr Charles, made a point about how a private health insurer suddenly and unilaterally withdrew cover, once it was clear to them that they would have to pay out. The good FoxinSox, medicus of this parish, has mentioned several times that insurance companies will not cover existing conditions and can get very snotty about chronic conditions.

It seems to me that private companies would have to be very heavily regulated if they are ever going to be used to assist in the funding of the NHS, so much so that they would either refuse the business or charge extraordinary premiums. Yet the idea of PMI is constantly pushed as the solution the problem that the NHS, as it stands, is unaffordable and unsustainable.

The other related problem to that solution is that the big users of the NHS are those of us richer in years, often with chronic conditions, who the insurers will not touch with a bargepole.

In all honesty I can't see a better way out of this mess than to make the state the insurer but not the provider. Set the hospitals loose, the patient can choose which one they want, they can choose which quack, surgeon, consultant they want but the insurer picks up the bills (which because the hospitals and quacks are all competing for custom ought to come down).

I think that to have the state as insurer of last resort is essential. There simply are a lot of people and conditions that are not insurable. It doesn't have to be a single system though, and I would personally be happy with a German style system where different companies have different levels of cover above the minimum threshold. A sort of "Speedy Boarding" supplement for example.

There are significant difficulties with consumerism in healthcare though, in particular what people want is often not what they need. Over-investigation and unnessecary interventions (often with significant iatrogenic morbidity) are near universal in such health care systems.

Private insurance is a non-starter as the bulk of a patient's costs are in the last 18 months or so of life.

With you on the German system. We cannot fix the NHS as it currently stands. It has to satisfy infinite demand with a finite budget.

Back to work shortly for me, but happy to debate later.

Implicit in your last statement is a recognition that there needs to be rationing on either a financial or clinical basis. In practice this is much like taxes or cuts, fine for other people but not for oneself!

''Private insurance is a non-starter as the bulk of a patient's costs are in the last 18 months or so of life. ''

Indeed. Some things that are currently done by the NHS could be hived off to the private sector though, surely, and financed via an insurance system, with the government the insurer of last resort for those who cannot pay premiums.

Casino_Royale said:

Farage came to within 3,000 votes, but it wasn't enough.

Had he been up against a Europhile Tory and slightly less polarising he could have won on the day - just.

What I find interesting about South Thanet is how well the Labour vote held up given it was a two-horse race.

The EU Referendum showed that there are a lot of people who agree with UKIP who, for various reasons, don't vote UKIP. The UKIP vote is really the tip of a big iceberg of Eurosceptic sentiment. Places where UKIP won c.13% at the last election typically had Leave votes of 50-60%. Places where UKIP's vote was below average typically recorded low scores for Leave. Places were UKIP were winning 25-35% were showing Leave votes of 65-75%.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

It's Dr. Prasannan, I didn't spend ten years in Evil Medical School Imperial College to be called "mister," thank you very much.

I have noticed, my dear fellow, as I have wandered around the world, that the only people who insist on having their doctorates mentioned in normal conversation, are those who were awarded them by third rate institutions, or in third rate countries, probably as a result of corruption.

Since I am sure this does not apply to yourself, it might be better to lay off the insistence on your title.

Ishmael_X said:

The actual letter is a masterpiece of illiteracy. It is addressed quite simply to "Kent police" (rather than to say the Chief Constable at such and such an address), it can't spell "centre" or "Surrey", gets apostrophes wrong twice and is headed, bafflingly, "Without Prejudice". It's a worrying thought experiment to consider what a force UKIP might be if its nastiness were not tempered by incompetence and amateurism.

The 'Without prejudice' really irked me too.

My life would be much more simpler if 'Without prejudice' was used less on letters, and I could use 'With extreme prejudice' on my letters.

foxinsoxuk said:

John_M said:

foxinsoxuk said:

HurstLlama said:

FPT

Mr Charles, made a point about how a private health insurer suddenly and unilaterally withdrew cover, once it was clear to them that they would have to pay out. The good FoxinSox, medicus of this parish, has mentioned several times that insurance companies will not cover existing conditions and can get very snotty about chronic conditions.

It seems to me that private companies would have to be very heavily regulated if they are ever going to be used to assist in the funding of the NHS, so much so that they would either refuse the business or charge extraordinary premiums. Yet the idea of PMI is constantly pushed as the solution the problem that the NHS, as it stands, is unaffordable and unsustainable.

The other related problem to that solution is that the big users of the NHS are those of us richer in years, often with chronic conditions, who the insurers will not touch with a bargepole.

In all honesty I can't see a better way out of this mess than to make the state the insurer but not the provider. Set the hospitals loose, the patient can choose which one they want, they can choose which quack, surgeon, consultant they want but the insurer picks up the bills (which because the hospitals and quacks are all competing for custom ought to come down).

I think that to have the state as insurer of last resort is essential. There simply are a lot of people and conditions that are not insurable. It doesn't have to be a single system though, and I would personally be happy with a German style system where different companies have different levels of cover above the minimum threshold. A sort of "Speedy Boarding" supplement for example.

There are significant difficulties with consumerism in healthcare though, in particular what people want is often not what they need. Over-investigation and unnessecary interventions (often with significant iatrogenic morbidity) are near universal in such health care systems.

Private insurance is a non-starter as the bulk of a patient's costs are in the last 18 months or so of life.

With you on the German system. We cannot fix the NHS as it currently stands. It has to satisfy infinite demand with a finite budget.

Back to work shortly for me, but happy to debate later.

Implicit in your last statement is a recognition that there needs to be rationing on either a financial or clinical basis. In practice this is much like taxes or cuts, fine for other people but not for oneself!

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but all politics is about rationing. It's just most acute in the NHS. Everything has an opportunity cost.

PClipp said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

It's Dr. Prasannan, I didn't spend ten years in Evil Medical School Imperial College to be called "mister," thank you very much.

I have noticed, my dear fellow, as I have wandered around the world, that the only people who insist on having their doctorates mentioned in normal conversation, are those who were awarded them by third rate institutions, or in third rate countries, probably as a result of corruption.

Since I am sure this does not apply to yourself, it might be better to lay off the insistence on your title.

I enjoyed one Dave Allen sketch in which he played Ian Paisley conversing with God, saying "It's the Reverend Dr. Paisley to you!"

foxinsoxuk said:

I think that to have the state as insurer of last resort is essential. There simply are a lot of people and conditions that are not insurable. It doesn't have to be a single system though, and I would personally be happy with a German style system where different companies have different levels of cover above the minimum threshold. A sort of "Speedy Boarding" supplement for example.

There are significant difficulties with consumerism in healthcare though, in particular what people want is often not what they need. Over-investigation and unnessecary interventions (often with significant iatrogenic morbidity) are near universal in such health care systems.

Thanks for that, Doc, I am jolly pleased you were able to turn up and join in the discussion.

My thinking at the moment is that the state should not be the insurer of last resort, but the insurer of first, last and only resort. Otherwise the state gets all the old crocks, like me, and the expense that goes with them whilst the insurance companies get the premiums paid for by the wealthy well. I am not sure that helps anyone but the insurance companies, which as Mr. Charles's example shows are quite able just to withdraw cover when it suits them and in effect say "sue me" to the patient.

I take your point about consumerism in the health service (congratulations by the way for being the first PB correspondent for a good while to make me have to go and look up a word, "iatrogenic"). I am not sure this is too much of a problem at the moment, either in the private or public health systems, though it seems to be in the USA with its very litigious culture. I should have thought that this could be quite easily sorted out by the medical profession itself plus some small bits of legislation.

The key points of the NHS is that healthcare should be needs based and free at the point of use. How to continue to achieve that with an aging population and a population where the number of non-net contributors is also growing (as is the population at large) is something we as a nation need to look at, urgently.

Ishmael_X said:

The actual letter is a masterpiece of illiteracy. It is addressed quite simply to "Kent police" (rather than to say the Chief Constable at such and such an address), it can't spell "centre" or "Surrey", gets apostrophes wrong twice and is headed, bafflingly, "Without Prejudice". It's a worrying thought experiment to consider what a force UKIP might be if its nastiness were not tempered by incompetence and amateurism.

How can they write "Without Prejudice" on a complaint to the Police?

Do they mean they've done something wrong as well, and don't want it to prejudice that?

Nuts.

John_M said:

Private insurance is a non-starter as the bulk of a patient's costs are in the last 18 months or so of life.

With you on the German system. We cannot fix the NHS as it currently stands. It has to satisfy infinite demand with a finite budget.

I had heard similar figures (50% in the last 6 months) so I did a little digging. An interesting article from NIH analyzing claims data for 3.75 million insurees. Only 12% is spent on over 85s, largely because the cohort is so much smaller, many having died before then.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/

On the other hand, 5% of those who are in critical care, which presumably includes many older people in the last days of their lives, and many younger trauma patients who do not survive, accounts for 50% of medical spending. [These figures are from the prestigious Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and show that most recipients in this 5% are neonates with complications and the elderly)

Another study, looking just at Medicare funding (provided for patients over 65, with end stage renal disease or on social security disability payments), shows that 30% is spent is spent on the 5% who die that year, and that one third of that expenditure is on the last month of life. Further, the study shows that those patients who received less medical care in that period ended up with better death experiences ...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbell/2013/01/10/why-5-of-patients-create-50-of-health-care-costs/#f2814d747818

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/08/24/u-chicago-to-frosh-no-safe-spaces-here.html

Chicago university tells generation snowflake to bugger off. Hopefully the Ivy League and California colleges follow suit.

Morris_Dancer said:

As a non-lawyer, non-Kipper, could someone explain the 'Without Prejudice' business?

It's a communication that contains an admission, with a view to seeking a settlement.

"eg I am prepared to concede your claim for breach of contract, in return for your abandoning your claim for breach of trust, and I therefore offer you £...... in full and final settlement of all claims you may have against me."

If that offer is rejected then the recipient of the letter (subject to certain exceptions) can not use it at a hearing.

taffys said:

''Private insurance is a non-starter as the bulk of a patient's costs are in the last 18 months or so of life. ''

Indeed. Some things that are currently done by the NHS could be hived off to the private sector though, surely, and financed via an insurance system, with the government the insurer of last resort for those who cannot pay premiums.

That may be true but what would be the point? It would (arguably) make medicine a bit more like dentistry, where we are more used to base NHS + private for fancy work, but the whole debate seems a bit aimless. Are we trying to reduce costs, improve outcomes, increase patient choice or what? And by what mechanism do any of the proposed reforms address these?

Charles said:

foxinsoxuk said:

HurstLlama said:

FPT

Mr Charles, made a point about how a private health insurer suddenly and unilaterally withdrew cover, once it was clear to them that they would have to pay out. The good FoxinSox, medicus of this parish, has mentioned several times that insurance companies will not cover existing conditions and can get very snotty about chronic conditions.

It seems to me that private companies would have to be very heavily regulated if they are ever going to be used to assist in the funding of the NHS, so much so that they would either refuse the business or charge extraordinary premiums. Yet the idea of PMI is constantly pushed as the solution the problem that the NHS, as it stands, is unaffordable and unsustainable.

The other related problem to that solution is that the big users of the NHS are those of us richer in years, often with chronic conditions, who the insurers will not touch with a bargepole.

In all honesty I can't see a better way out of this mess than to make the state the insurer but not the provider. Set the hospitals loose, the patient can choose which one they want, they can choose which quack, surgeon, consultant they want but the insurer picks up the bills (which because the hospitals and quacks are all competing for custom ought to come down).

I think that to have the state as insurer of last resort is essential. There simply are a lot of people and conditions that are not insurable. It doesn't have to be a single system though, and I would personally be happy with a German style system where different companies have different levels of cover above the minimum threshold. A sort of "Speedy Boarding" supplement for example.

There are significant difficulties with consumerism in healthcare though, in particular what people want is often not what they need. Over-investigation and unnessecary interventions (often with significant iatrogenic morbidity) are near universal in such health care systems.

I'd go for a mixed system.

Create a "standard" plan with a limited number of providers (say 5-8). Government to set the terms (e.g. exclusions) and pay the premiums. Everyone is covered automatically at this basic level. Consumers are then free to choose their providers who should be forced to compete on quality of service, network, etc.

Insurers can then try to upsell customers for premium services (e.g. branded vs generic Rd, free choice of hospitals, latest cancer drug that doesn't pass the NICE tests, etc). But all these extras are paid for privately.

Snap. See my post at 09:57, although you have described it far more clearly.

Ishmael_X said:

MarkHopkins said:

Ishmael_X said:

The actual letter is a masterpiece of illiteracy. It is addressed quite simply to "Kent police" (rather than to say the Chief Constable at such and such an address), it can't spell "centre" or "Surrey", gets apostrophes wrong twice and is headed, bafflingly, "Without Prejudice". It's a worrying thought experiment to consider what a force UKIP might be if its nastiness were not tempered by incompetence and amateurism.

How can they write "Without Prejudice" on a complaint to the Police?

Do they mean they've done something wrong as well, and don't want it to prejudice that?

Nuts.

They think it gives a nice classy legal feel to the letter, without the expense of actually paying for advice.

It's frequently used by litigants in person and McKenzie friends, who have no idea what they're doing.

PClipp said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

It's Dr. Prasannan, I didn't spend ten years in Evil Medical School Imperial College to be called "mister," thank you very much.

I have noticed, my dear fellow, as I have wandered around the world, that the only people who insist on having their doctorates mentioned in normal conversation, are those who were awarded them by third rate institutions, or in third rate countries, probably as a result of corruption.

Since I am sure this does not apply to yourself, it might be better to lay off the insistence on your title.

Imperial College is hardly a third rate country, and the UK is hardly a third rate institution!

Sean_F said:

PClipp said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

It's Dr. Prasannan, I didn't spend ten years in Evil Medical School Imperial College to be called "mister," thank you very much.

I have noticed, my dear fellow, as I have wandered around the world, that the only people who insist on having their doctorates mentioned in normal conversation, are those who were awarded them by third rate institutions, or in third rate countries, probably as a result of corruption.

Since I am sure this does not apply to yourself, it might be better to lay off the insistence on your title.

I enjoyed one Dave Allen sketch in which he played Ian Paisley conversing with God, saying "It's the Reverend Dr. Paisley to you!"

"Is it The Honourable Sergeant Wilson, or Sergeant The Honourable Wilson?"

Patrick said:

Pulpstar said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

PClipp said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

Nice Jane Grey reference.

With my expert and detailed knowledge of all eras of history, I try and get in as many historical references into threads as possible. Is my way of helping those PBers like Morris Dancer who lack such detailed knowledge.

Yebbut was Suzanne ever UKIP leader for only 9 days?

Frequently, Mr Prasannan. Didn`t they tell you?

It's Dr. Prasannan, I didn't spend ten years in Evil Medical School Imperial College to be called "mister," thank you very much.

Only 'proper' doctors get to become "Mister" again

And then when they're really proper they get to become Professor! My consultant ophthalmologist being a case in point.

(BTW My left eye is now the Moorfields reference / teaching eye for myopic macular degeneration. How cool is that!)

Congratulations to your eye. Moorfields could do with some better bus stops imo.

HurstLlama said:

Thanks for that, Doc, I am jolly pleased you were able to turn up and join in the discussion.

My thinking at the moment is that the state should not be the insurer of last resort, but the insurer of first, last and only resort. Otherwise the state gets all the old crocks, like me, and the expense that goes with them whilst the insurance companies get the premiums paid for by the wealthy well. I am not sure that helps anyone but the insurance companies, which as Mr. Charles's example shows are quite able just to withdraw cover when it suits them and in effect say "sue me" to the patient.

I take your point about consumerism in the health service (congratulations by the way for being the first PB correspondent for a good while to make me have to go and look up a word, "iatrogenic"). I am not sure this is too much of a problem at the moment, either in the private or public health systems, though it seems to be in the USA with its very litigious culture. I should have thought that this could be quite easily sorted out by the medical profession itself plus some small bits of legislation.

The key points of the NHS is that healthcare should be needs based and free at the point of use. How to continue to achieve that with an aging population and a population where the number of non-net contributors is also growing (as is the population at large) is something we as a nation need to look at, urgently.

This was the logic behind the personal mandate in Obamacare - that the carrot for insurers for being forced to take the old crocks was that the healthy young would be forced to buy insurance too.

The reason I was so opposed to that is that it represents a transfer of wealth from the young, generally poorer, to the old, generally richer, i.e. it is the worst sort of regressive taxation. If you have to resort to taxation for universal health (and I am convinced you do), then add it to general taxation and make sure it is, at the very least, not regressive.

''That may be true but what would be the point?''

Make the system less unwieldy? As has been said the NHS is outstanding where it is grappling with the stuff that makes the insurance companies run for the hills. The stuff they don;t want to pay for. Would, say, taking routine stuff off them help the NHS and the patient too?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-leave-the-la-times-poll-alone/

This is a mighty fine article by Nate Silver.

Charles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Sean_F said:

PClipp said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

It's Dr. Prasannan, I didn't spend ten years in Evil Medical School Imperial College to be called "mister," thank you very much.

I have noticed, my dear fellow, as I have wandered around the world, that the only people who insist on having their doctorates mentioned in normal conversation, are those who were awarded them by third rate institutions, or in third rate countries, probably as a result of corruption.

Since I am sure this does not apply to yourself, it might be better to lay off the insistence on your title.

I enjoyed one Dave Allen sketch in which he played Ian Paisley conversing with God, saying "It's the Reverend Dr. Paisley to you!"

"Is it The Honourable Sergeant Wilson, or Sergeant The Honourable Wilson?"

The former.

It'd be neither, I think, as 'The Hon' needs to go with a forename but even then wouldn't it be the latter?

Sergeant The Hon Arthur Wilson. Likewise, Field Marshal The Duke of Wellington.

Mr. X, now that's a title.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. X, now that's a title.

Nah, best title ever is

"His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular"

He was also the uncrowned King of Scotland

Pulpstar said:

John_M said:

foxinsoxuk said:

HurstLlama said:

FPT

Mr Charles, made a point about how a private health insurer suddenly and unilaterally withdrew cover, once it was clear to them that they would have to pay out. The good FoxinSox, medicus of this parish, has mentioned several times that insurance companies will not cover existing conditions and can get very snotty about chronic conditions.

It seems to me that private companies would have to be very heavily regulated if they are ever going to be used to assist in the funding of the NHS, so much so that they would either refuse the business or charge extraordinary premiums. Yet the idea of PMI is constantly pushed as the solution the problem that the NHS, as it stands, is unaffordable and unsustainable.

The other related problem to that solution is that the big users of the NHS are those of us richer in years, often with chronic conditions, who the insurers will not touch with a bargepole.

In all honesty I can't see a better way out of this mess than to make the state the insurer but not the provider. Set the hospitals loose, the patient can choose which one they want, they can choose which quack, surgeon, consultant they want but the insurer picks up the bills (which because the hospitals and quacks are all competing for custom ought to come down).

I think that to have the state as insurer of last resort is essential. There simply are a lot of people and conditions that are not insurable. It doesn't have to be a single system though, and I would personally be happy with a German style system where different companies have different levels of cover above the minimum threshold. A sort of "Speedy Boarding" supplement for example.

There are significant difficulties with consumerism in healthcare though, in particular what people want is often not what they need. Over-investigation and unnessecary interventions (often with significant iatrogenic morbidity) are near universal in such health care systems.

Private insurance is a non-starter as the bulk of a patient's costs are in the last 18 months or so of life.

With you on the German system. We cannot fix the NHS as it currently stands. It has to satisfy infinite demand with a finite budget.

I think the NHS is fine*, probably needs a couple more % of gdp thrown at it and also the Jr Docs to stop whinging.

Some fringe issues like not going for those shit pfi contracts, and stopping it becoming the IHS (A la @MaxPB) are there but all in all it does a not bad job.

Agreed. It's similar to the Canadian system and I think theirs costs more, partly because doctors bill the government for every consultation, or so I was told when I was last there. Better to pay doctors just to have a patient on their list?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/25/labour-left-humiliated-after-g4s-turns-down-last-ditch-plea-to-p/

You'd have to have a heart of stone etc etc

Morris_Dancer said:

I agree the ban is daft [although I can see the reasoning behind a niqab/burkha ban].

I think it's prefectly reasonable that in some places and performing some functions, the face should be visable.

I don't see anything 'wrong' with headscarfs, but when i was on holiday in cyprus last month there was a muslim couple there and the guy was in shorts and t-shirt and the woman was covered at all times. Clearly the guy had no issues with seeing all other women in swimsuits and binikis. I just thought that was rather sad.

Funnily enough it's never the other way around, you never get guys covering up.....