I'm afraid this is yet another example of how mass immigration can be very damaging. The belief in some quarters that a Country can just let limitless amounts of immigrants in and suffer no adverse effects, both to infrastructure and culture is simply pie in the sky. Things are going to get a lot worse and populations are going to become increasingly angry and unsettled imo.
Brown's boom and bust claim was foolish but he never claimed that he had made the UK impervious to Global economic impacts. Of course, the Tories went on to blame him and the Labour government for the Bankers' crash and the numbskull electorate fell for it. Gideon is now spooked and is making wildly contradictory statements. On the one hand he is preparing to blame global events for the anticipated collapse of his 'miracle' recovery. On the other he is warning that interest rates will have to rise to pop the housing bubble upon which this so-called recovery is based. The man is out of his depth.
Chief Medical Officer's Alcohol Guidance Has probably damaged my health more seriously through raising my blood pressure than the couple of glasses of wine I average per day. Only an idiot would deny that drinking can damage your health. Obviously it is important to know what the risks are, so you can make an informed decision about your personal habits. But this report is shoddy in the extreme and contains completely unverifiable alleged 'facts' such as 20,000 people a year are diagnosed with cancer 'because of alcohol'. It's simply impossible to say that without knowing the other risk factors that those individuals had, primarily genetic. I'd be interested to hear Beth's thoughts on this, but from what I've seen if my company tried to submit a new medicine using 'evidence' like this, we would be laughed at. Statistical analysis is very complex, especially outside of trials with proper protocols and independent monitoring. There is an important message in here, but the way it has been presented, including the bewildering performance of the CMO herself on the Today programme ( 'the science says this etc etc' - the science says many often contradictory things) will just lead to arguments about scaremongering, nanny state etc and the whole thing will be forgotten in a couple of days, with no impact on the nation's health at all. And it makes me want to yell from the rooftops 'we are all going to die you know, get over it and enjoy yourself as much as you can before it happens!'
I'm no economist but fully appreciate that austerity hurts and it would be great if more money was available. The gauge I tend to use is - which economies around the world are doing better than us? So, rule out China and Brazil both of which are on the downturn, China seriously. Japan's been down for years. France is in disarray, in fact Europe's down generally. We're doing better than any European country than Germany which seems broadly to be on a par. Only America seems to be pressing ahead and has raised interest rates which is a sign of growth. So while our position is far from perfect, I wouldn't swap it with many
That makes sense on a pure headline economic indicator basis but may not tally with what it's actually like to live in some places which look worse off on paper. Japan has been in recession for decades, but I've never seen a boarded up shop there. Or a charity shop for that matter. The unemployment rate is 3.3% compared to our 5% which we are so proud of. And there's virtually no immigration, it's a 99% homogenous culture, you'd love it Goldie! It's possible to live extremely well on less money in places like Italy and Spain, even though they are economic basket cases, allegedly. In most European countries they don't work as many hours, or for as many years as us, yet they are far more productive. I've seen more smiling faces in India than anywhere else. And I've never heard more people moaning about the (extortionate) cost of living than Sydneysiders during the time that Australia was bucking the international trend and had a very strong economy (still a fantastic place to live of course). Statistics only get you so far, and as Osborne was indicating yesterday, he has no control over factors which could send his figures crashing overnight. And of course, positive economic figures mean little if your personal economic situation is dire, even if your poverty is relative rather than absolute. "The British don't want to be happy, they want to be right" Quentin Crisp.
All that is genuinely interesting, Stan, but it doesn't explain why the UK, more particularly England, more particularly London and the South East - is about the most popular place to emigrate to in the world. Ask all those young Middle Eastern and African men in filthy camps in Calais and Dunkirk why they are so keen to leave France. We complain here about the NHS but I understand (listening to LBC) that to go to a doctor in Ireland costs 50 euros a time. How well would that go down in the UK where there's a liberal uproar when it is suggested that those patients that can't be bothered to keep appointments should pay a small charge?
Well, firstly lets get some facts right. Of the million refugees to have arrived in Europe last year, 8,000 are in Calais and Dunkirk wanting to come to the UK. So there are apparently more popular places to go to for these people, Sweden judging by the news being one of them. I'm not saying we should let them in, but the scale of the issue isn't as immense as is sometimes made out. Why do they and other 'legal' migrants want to come here? I'd guess at availability of work, the language, family/other contacts already in the country. Plus of course the amazing marketing job our government does telling everyone how much better we are than the rest of Europe. According to the economic indicators. Who wouldn't want to come? You can't have it both ways, claiming we are better off than everyone else and then being upset that people want to come here. Don't get the relevance of your NHS comments, but you won't get me sticking up for the way it's run. I think people like me, who can afford it, should be charged to visit a GP. Of course the elderly, kids, disabled, chronically ill, poor etc shouldn't and sadly these are the people who take up most GPs time. I don't think they pay in Ireland either, which has a strange mixed economy health system. The way the NHS is run though the transaction costs of collecting consultation fees would probably be triple the revenue generated.
Sweden and Germany had open door policies. That's why so many went there, and they could be reached on the mainland. Once these migrants get EU passports, they can move where they like in the EU and I'm willing to bet London will be more popular than sticking out a Scandinavian winter. We are generally better off than most others, and we should be able to restrict those who want to come to those we need. We should be able to have a choice. The relevance of the NHS is that a lot of people moan here about it not being as good as it could be, but free at the point of use is a huge privilege and, I believe, not replicated virtually anywhere else in the world. I use our neighbours Ireland as an example of how they have to pay 50 euros per doctors visit and, so far as I know, don't moan about it. We've been quite spoiled here imo.
The situation in Ireland re Health service is quite depressing and is definitely not a model to be copied anywhere IMO. As you say, it costs to attend a GP; it can be as low as €40 in rural areas, and as high as €60-65 in Dublin, but if you exceed the income thresholds whether you are young or old, you have to pay, and the income thresholds are low. A couple under 66 must pay to see a GP if their joint gross income per week (gross less tax, PRSI and Universal Social Charge) is €266.66 per week, and if you're over 66 the gross limit is a princely €298 per week. If, like me, your income exceeds these limits then as well as paying the doc you also must pay full prescription costs. I have 4 children under 12, so doctor's visits often work out between €100 - 150 by the time you've left the pharmacy. To attend a hospital A&E, you must hand over €100 before they will look at you, and this fee applies to kids as well. I can assure you that there is plenty of moaning going on about it, all the time!
Thanks for that, G-C. Always good to hear from someone who knows what they're talking about! 150 Euros by the time you've left the pharmacy? It sounds like the moaning is fully justified. So I'll put it another way for those in the UK. We don't know when we're well off
The NHS is fantastic. But we must all realise, there will never be enough money to fund it to the level we all want
I'd say bits of the NHS are fantastic, absolutely world class, and other bits are criminally poor. And it's not just about funding, it's about organisation, ethos, and attitude. Like the second amendment in the US, the 'free at the point of delivery' NHS has become an item of almost religious significance to some, such a sacred cow that you can't even look at it, let alone change it significantly. You could fund it much more generously by spending less on other things, or raising taxes, but I wouldn't throw good money after bad. I would much rather have a compulsory health insurance system where I would know how much I was spending on health and set my expectations accordingly. Is access to health care a right or a tradeable commodity? And if it's a right, what obligations accompany that right?
You may be arrested for blasphemy, Stan, but much of this is 100% true, particularly the bit about the incredibly good and criminally poor. The 2nd Amendment is an excellent comparison - no politician has the courage to meddle with it, perhaps even an outgoing president/prime minister, so it staggers on like Jimmy Cagney with a slug through his guts
If any of you have ever taken a pet for treatment at a Vets then you might get some semblance of the eye-watering costs that could be levied if the NHS went. An old friend of mine went into Veterinary practice in the early 80s from a rickety old shop in Kennington as a partner. He then took the brave step to go it alone and a few years ago retired back to Ireland a multi-millionaire. He told me he'd have gone under in the first two years on his own if it weren't for the then fairly new advent of pet insurance. Private health insurance is making many doctors wealthy beyond their wildest dreams yet it's the NHS that is providing them with the knowledge whilst it ends up bringing in foreign doctors to make up the shortfall, many with dubious qualifications. The new contracts being brought in may make things worse still, it is a worrying time as the service reaches crisis point...
Anyone who mentions that the NHS should be part-funded from private sources gets turned on by the left and is accused of trying to completely privatise the NHS. IMO, we will have to end up with some kind of dual system, whereby those that can be means-tested to be able to afford it (presumably with an income in excess of at least £75k) have to arrange their health care privately. everyone should still be treated at A&E and then those with private health care can be charged after the treatment. Presumably a lot of people would be able to use A&Es at private hospitals too. It has to happen, as there is no way our NHS can survive as it is.
If it stops people missing appointments and making appointments for things that don't need them, I don't see a problem with there being a small charge for seeing a GP. I'd make an exception for certain people depending on their income and if their visit was justified. Seeing a GP because you have a cold? You deserve to lose a tenner.
Then you will have two different qualities of healthcare, which is fair enough if you regard health as a commodity.
Why? Surely the NHS would be able to offer a better serviceIif it was able to spend it's money on fewer patients? I would also be in favour of meana-tested people paying to see their GP and this money going into NHS funds.
And would the people paying for their own health insurance get anything out of it or would you be hit three times Once to pay for the NHS Again for your own insurance and most likely to see a gp
