why would it cost an extra 20 billion a year just to maintain current services whats the extra cost from wont things get easier for the nhs now it wont have to look after all those pesky foreigners for free
QUOTE="kiwiqpr, post: 11778474, member: 1008343"]why would it cost an extra 20 billion a year just to maintain current services whats the extra cost from wont things get easier for the nhs now it wont have to look after all those pesky foreigners for free[/QUOTE] Well, the extra cost comes primarily from people living longer. So-called 'health tourism' is barely even a consideration. Immigrant doctors and nurses (pesky foreigners) are actually vital to the survival of the NHS. You knew that though, didn't you?
Just turned over from Question Time. In my semi comatose state it finally struck me that I might as well be watching a repeat from any of these programmes from the last two years, and my feelings about all members of the panel and audience had similarly not changed.
Well, the extra cost comes primarily from people living longer. So-called 'health tourism' is barely even a consideration. Immigrant doctors and nurses (pesky foreigners) are actually vital to the survival of the NHS. You knew that though, didn't you?[/QUOTE] has anyone said the doctors and nurses will be asked to leave
has anyone said the doctors and nurses will be asked to leave[/QUOTE] They're not waiting to be asked to leave. They're leaving. Not welcome anymore.
They're not waiting to be asked to leave. They're leaving. Not welcome anymore.[/QUOTE] And "the pesky foreigners that get free treatment" probably still will.
And "the pesky foreigners that get free treatment" probably still will.[/QUOTE] In March 2017, 61,934 EU staff were working across HCHS – equivalent to 5.22 per cent of the headcount. This equates to 57,737 FTE, which is 5.51 per cent.21 are they all leaving
[/QUOTE] How many have left Do you really think they won't be able to be replaced And people that don't qualify for free treatment shouldn't be getting it
Seen Morgan freeman is getting done for sexual harassment. Sounds like he's got a problem with touching some of them and saying a lot of inappropriate remarks. One of the things that caught my eye were in the reports are that quite a few of them are saying they were being looked up and down and this constituted sexual harassment. When did perving at someone (maybe in full view of their face) become such a big thing to sexual harassment
Agree with Stroller that the whole Brexit campaign was essentially built on a lie. There won't be extra billions for the NHS, foreign doctors and nurses will leave as a result of the racist sentiments that have been conjured up by the whole campaign, and NHS aside, there will be hundreds of other projects and schemes that will not receive EU funding they currently rely on. Also worth noting, while the NHS is being destroyed by 'health tourism', it also works the other way round. Since living in France, we have used the health service a lot due to sick kids and my being an expert in dislocating shoulders. We have paid the same €26, or around that, a month that everyone in France pays for private healthcare to cover the 20% not covered by the state. Not once has anyone asked if we are entitled to it, or why we get it as British citizens.
Quite simply, if somene is doing something sexual and it makes you feel uncomfortable / threatened / harrassed, then it's sexual harrassment. And clearly, if you're perving on a woman in such an obvious way that she knows you're doing it, and you carry on, you've stepped over the line.
Well the whole crux of it is there should never have been a vote in the first place. Firstly it was never a yes no question, it was far more complex with factors that pretty much nobody was aware of. People stating they knew what they voted for was nonsense, two years on and a lot of the important issues are far from clear, the customs union for one, so if they don't know the details now are these people privy to a crystal ball not accessible to the rest of us? For all I know it could yet be a success, however with the majority of the information, the reports, analysis, expert opinions suggesting from before the vote happened that it was economic suicide (which hasn't changed, if anything it could well be worse than first expected) that will not only seriously impact on my generation but that of my children as well, I'd rather know more about a proposed deal, analysis and well what benefits there will be before being prepared to take a risk this proportion, I still can't see the positives personally.
I still find it ironic that the only reason we're in this position is that David Cameron underestimated his popularity. Expecting another coalition in 2015, he used the referendum as a manifesto pledge to ward off UKIP, because it was something he knew the Lib Dems would be firmly against and it was a simple concession to make to bring them back in as coalition partners. When he won a majority, he was then stuck with holding a referendum he didn't want to have. And now we're here - at a point we don't want to be at, trying to make deals over items we don't want to change, with a European body that don't want us to leave, based on rhetoric, falsehoods and an incredible lack of understanding and knowledge going into a hugely important referendum vote, and followed by vitriolic outrage from certain media outlets designed specifically to maintain the illusion of a deeply divided society.
Interesting discussion on the Today programme this morning about identity politics. While I am privileged to have an innate ‘identity’ - white, middle aged man, who is also well educated and in relative terms well off - which means I don’t have to think about my ‘identity’ often, I do know that because of this I find it literally impossible to conceive of being in the position where I feel that my identity - skin colour, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity etc, things which I can’t change - puts me at an historic and actual disadvantage, real or perceived, and I think about it all the time. So while my knee jerk reaction to identity politics is irritation, and that equality of opportunity especially in education and health, is the obvious answer, on reflection I really don’t think I have am in a position to have a valid comment. Other than trying to make me feel guilty about my own identity, which I can’t change, won’t help help anything (well I could black up and cross dress I suppose). I can sympathise but I can’t empathise and it would be wrong to pretend that I can. The radio discussion was about whether the liberal left recent focus on identity politics and clearly defined ‘disadvantaged’ groups has made it unable to be elected to govern. It was claimed that in the US Clinton’s rainbow campaign put many off voting for her (though her clear membership of the ‘elite’ may have had a role there too), but the democrats are suffering everywhere - to the extent that the Republicans only need to gain control of two more states to be in the position to make constitutional changes. Over here, while the Labour leadership is anything but ‘liberal’ it is falling behind in the polls at precisely the time when it should be surging ahead. So it could be argued (not completely sure if I buy it) that the right and populists, while moaning endlessly about identity politics, are benefitting from it when it comes to elections.
nah i can't agree with that. At the end of the day if you chuck 2 white candidates in front of them, "minority" groups are still going to have to choose one who is not their identity. I can't believe that they are more inclined to be voting May instead of Corbyn because he thinks minorities are more disadvantaged!
