[Andrewthefirst]

Originally Posted by JNW1

I agree this election was an error but, while I know some think it will make no difference, I also believe it's weakened our position in terms of the Brexit negotiations as well. Why? Simply because I think one of the options we needed to have available - and which the EU needed to know we'd be prepared to use if necessary - was "Hard Brexit" with a resolve to walk away if we deemed there was nothing acceptable to us on the table.

However, following the election I suspect the other parties won't allow Theresa May to adopt such a hard-line stance and, more importantly, the EU negotiators will know that as well. The net effect is they'll feel much more confident pushing for a "Soft Brexit" outcome because ultimately they know that's what this Parliament will force the government to accept. However, from a UK perspective that feels like the worst of all worlds to me - if we're going to continue to pay loads of money to the EU surely we might as well remain a full member and at least have some say on the rules?

Agree with your post, apart from that last sentence

No doubt that Theresa's negotiating position is greatly weakened. IMO that alone very bad for all of us brexiteers or not. I can almost hear the giggles from our Euro-pals as David Davis or Theresa walks into the first EU brexit meeting.

[mcoops]

Originally Posted by Lobb

Indeed.

Let's leave on WTO terms. Like the USA, Japan, India, China, Russia and most of the world's economies.

However. Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Holland and Belgium all export more to us than we do to them. And of course, sterling has depreciated against the Euro making their exports to us less competitive.

I don't see the problem. You still buy Apple products on WTO terms.

I hear this argument a lot - maybe I don't get it (quite possible )

If we were talking about a bilateral agreement with any one of those countries, of course they would have more to lose. But surely the point is that each of them individually only risks one trading relationship, whereas we are risking several. Plus, they can try, over time, to reset their trade volumes amongst themselves on preferential terms, as well as with non-EU partners as part of the EU bloc. Whereas we have to have to renegotiate all of our trade deals, with only our own volumes to bargain with.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Alex440

I don't remember seeing soft or hard Brexit on the voting card.

I think the politicians overestimate the public interest in this. Some business leaders might care, but everyone else assumed out meant out.

As for weakening our hand, we already have a piss poor hand anyway. I wouldn't worry about the election result, whatever happens the EU is going to be strong with us.

We will NOT get what we want, because if we do everyone else will look to leave the EU. The EU will categorically not let that happen.

They will happily risk exports to the UK market to maintain the EU's equilibrium. All entirely predictable before the referendum, just another lie - We have a strong negotiating position - like fuck we do.

I take your points but I think we now have a scenario where out almost certainly isn't going to mean out whereas with a strong Conservative majority at least it might have done. With the Parliament we have now I think "out" is much more likely to mean a Brexit which involves continuing to pay large amounts to the EU whilst having no say or influence over their rules and I suspect most who voted Leave weren't expecting that as an outcome....

[mcoops]

Originally Posted by Lobb

I agree.

We move to WTO terms for all EU countries.

Given how the currency works against them already, how would you feel about paying an extra 10% for your next German car?

Don't they do that every year anyway?

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by JNW1

I take your points but I think we now have a scenario where out almost certainly isn't going to mean out whereas with a strong Conservative majority at least it might have done. With the Parliament we have now I think "out" is much more likely to mean a Brexit which involves continuing to pay large amounts to the EU whilst having no say or influence over their rules and I suspect most who voted Leave weren't expecting that as an outcome....

If out doesn't mean out, but means something quite different, our government doesn't have a public mandate for that.

Leave was sold to the public as a way to stop paying any money at all to the EU. That's what people voted for. Nothing was mentioned DURING the referendum about compensation when leaving, or continuous payments.

Genuinely, if out means something that we didn't vote for, then another referendum actually has some merit.

Apart from the fact that every member of the public would commit suicide if another major political campaign started again.

What a mess, oh for a time machine back to 2015.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Alex440

What a mess, oh for a time machine back to 2015.

I'm sure many would echo that sentiment, not least a certain David Cameron!!

[AndyEssex330d]

Originally Posted by Alex440

So, do you want the NHS got rid of altogether and have a system like America where you need health insurance? Or, do you want an NHS still accessible free by all run by private companies?

Neither. The healthcare system and provision needs complete privatisation, however access shouldn't be refused and a basic insurance provided to all.

Having healthcare provided by private healthcare companies will reduce the cost of provision, therefore for me and many others to pay for health insurance will be far cheaper than my NI and health insurance bill.

[AndyEssex330d]

Originally Posted by teaston

Surely if it was owned by a private company it would have to make profit? Which would mean taxpayers would get less for their money?

Yes it would need to make a profit. Profit isn't a bad thing. Profit is also made by reducing cost of service provision, rather than putting up the price, and that is exactly what the NHS needs.

Also profit in a service related business generally means heavy re-investment and better wages.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by AndyEssex330d

Neither. The healthcare system and provision needs complete privatisation, however access shouldn't be refused and a basic insurance provided to all.

Having healthcare provided by private healthcare companies will reduce the cost of provision, therefore for me and many others to pay for health insurance will be far cheaper than my NI and health insurance bill.

I don't pretend to have all the answers to funding the NHS and Social Care for the elderly but I do think it's about time there was a serious debate about what we do. It's becoming increasingly clear that the current situation simply isn't sustainable and, with an ageing population and the NHS being expected to provide and fund an ever wider range of treatments, it's only going to get worse.

We're rightfully proud of our NHS but the world has moved on massively since its creation and I think a different formula may well be required for the future. That doesn't mean I want to see a system that only the rich can afford (I certainly don't) but people who think we can just continue funding the current NHS as if it was still the 1950's need to get real IMO.

Unfortunately, though, anyone who suggests change is likely to be accused of wanting to dismantle the NHS and that's a major vote loser; therefore, perhaps not surprising our politicians tend to keep their heads down (in the sand?) where this issue is concerned.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by AndyEssex330d

Neither. The healthcare system and provision needs complete privatisation, however access shouldn't be refused and a basic insurance provided to all.

Having healthcare provided by private healthcare companies will reduce the cost of provision, therefore for me and many others to pay for health insurance will be far cheaper than my NI and health insurance bill.

That is a bold statement with no evidence to back it up.

Which businesses that have been privatised in the past made buying from them cheaper!?

Some may have made a profit, some didn't. The vast majority are still run by the same people with very little changed.

I deal with British Steel and Tata a lot. Both are still run in exactly the same way they were 30 years ago, in a lot of cases by the exact same people. Inefficient, bureaucratic, and most of the time loss making. In 30 years they still haven't broken the unions stranglehold.

Did the price of a stamp go down when the Royal Mail was privatised?

The NHS is a huge, incredibly complicated business. The private companies needed to run it efficiently just don't exist. Sure, a few are taking advantage and running small parts, some slightly bigger. But they are doing it with the same staff the NHS are, on the same, or in most cases higher pay. They are also trying to make a profit.

But, somehow you seem confident that this amazing company, or group of companies is out there that can suddenly transform the NHS and at the same time make it cheaper for you?

Or is it just the mantra private means better, with no thought as to how or who can possibly achieve this?

And it is truly amazing that you think the government will reduce your tax bill proportionately to the cost of healthcare that you will no longer be receiving. You'll be lucky to see a penny with the national debt we have.

In the US health insurance costs 3-5 times more than our private health insurance. That's what you'll be paying.

You might thinks that's acceptable. But what about when you retire? You can't just stop paying private and rely on the NHS, you'll still need £3-5k for insurance, maybe more as you'll be high risk. I certainly haven't factored that into my pension plan.

This is not a route we should be taking. It doesn't work in America, why the fuck do we want to head that way.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by JNW1

I don't pretend to have all the answers to funding the NHS and Social Care for the elderly but I do think it's about time there was a serious debate about what we do. It's becoming increasingly clear that the current situation simply isn't sustainable and, with an ageing population and the NHS being expected to provide and fund an ever wider range of treatments, it's only going to get worse.

We're rightfully proud of our NHS but the world has moved on massively since its creation and I think a different formula may well be required for the future. That doesn't mean I want to see a system that only the rich can afford (I certainly don't) but people who think we can just continue funding the current NHS as if it was still the 1950's need to get real IMO.

Unfortunately, though, anyone who suggests change is likely to be accused of wanting to dismantle the NHS and that's a major vote loser; therefore, perhaps not surprising our politicians tend to keep their heads down (in the sand?) where this issue is concerned.

Do they though?! It's happening already. Virgin Health awarded another £700m of contracts this week.

We don't get a referendum on this stuff, no input at all. Our elected politicians decide on our behalf.

[Dyl]

Originally Posted by Lobb

We move to WTO terms for all EU countries.

People, usually leavers, have such a simplistic view of WTO.

There are quotas for everything we would then have to meet for our exports. For example we would only be able to export 200 tons of lamb to the E.U., with a 40% export duty, which of course is currently tariff free, compared to the 75,000 tons UK farmers currently export.

93% of Welsh lamb is exported to the rest of Europe.

Multiply this problem for everything we export to the E.U. It's madness.

[Consett Mag]

Originally Posted by AndyEssex330d

The healthcare system and provision needs complete privatisation, however access shouldn't be refused and a basic insurance provided to all.

Having healthcare provided by private healthcare companies will reduce the cost of provision, therefore for me and many others to pay for health insurance will be far cheaper than my NI and health insurance bill.

UK NHS health costs v US private health costs can be compared. The data is out there.
I have to say that the last time I looked into it, the UK was hugely less expensive.

Maybe you can cite private health care providers who are cheaper than our setup.

[AndyEssex330d]

Originally Posted by Consett Mag

UK NHS health costs v US private health costs can be compared. The data is out there.
I have to say that the last time I looked into it, the UK was hugely less expensive.

Maybe you can cite private health care providers who are cheaper than our setup.

I never said they couldn't be compared, however they differ too much to take the American system as gospel, wages differ, overhead costs differ, procedures differ, too many variables in my opinion, meaning the result would never be probable enough.

The problem is we are, or people are, comparing the American system with a 'what if' system over here. Until it is done it cannot be compared entirely. There is a lot of data out there to support any argument.

[AndyEssex330d]

Originally Posted by Alex440

That is a bold statement with no evidence to back it up.

Which businesses that have been privatised in the past made buying from them cheaper!?

Some may have made a profit, some didn't. The vast majority are still run by the same people with very little changed.

I deal with British Steel and Tata a lot. Both are still run in exactly the same way they were 30 years ago, in a lot of cases by the exact same people. Inefficient, bureaucratic, and most of the time loss making. In 30 years they still haven't broken the unions stranglehold.

Did the price of a stamp go down when the Royal Mail was privatised?

The NHS is a huge, incredibly complicated business. The private companies needed to run it efficiently just don't exist. Sure, a few are taking advantage and running small parts, some slightly bigger. But they are doing it with the same staff the NHS are, on the same, or in most cases higher pay. They are also trying to make a profit.

But, somehow you seem confident that this amazing company, or group of companies is out there that can suddenly transform the NHS and at the same time make it cheaper for you?

Or is it just the mantra private means better, with no thought as to how or who can possibly achieve this?

And it is truly amazing that you think the government will reduce your tax bill proportionately to the cost of healthcare that you will no longer be receiving. You'll be lucky to see a penny with the national debt we have.

In the US health insurance costs 3-5 times more than our private health insurance. That's what you'll be paying.

You might thinks that's acceptable. But what about when you retire? You can't just stop paying private and rely on the NHS, you'll still need £3-5k for insurance, maybe more as you'll be high risk. I certainly haven't factored that into my pension plan.

This is not a route we should be taking. It doesn't work in America, why the fuck do we want to head that way.

As the healthcare system over here isn't privatised I have no evidence to back it up. That works both ways.

The Royal Mail being privatised was the best thing that could have been done. I work incredibly closely with them. Their prices are far lower than they would be if publicly owned. In an economy with inflation if you expect any prices to fall then you are delusional. They have also invested heavily to make it more productive, to provide a profit as well as stem the rate of price increases. And the prices being paid are far less now then they were. The stamp accounts for less than 5% of post sent...maybe even less.

Why would it be 3-5 times more? Where is the proof of that? Has their been published research on it then directly comparing the Av. Cost of healthcare in the US with the potential cost over here?

And when I retire I will happily continue to pay for my healthcare as I know the cost to the NHS in my older age is more than my younger years, If i know it will be the case I can prepare for it, and 3-5k a year isn't a great deal to prepare for.

They wouldn't reduce the tax bill substantially, NI would need to go, but maybe if they do not and they aren't throwing hundreds of billions into the NHS black hole every year the national debt...which every country except bloody Norway has by the way... would be far less in my opinion, if exist at all.

It is just my opinion and you have yours, however a publicly owned NHS has failed...so why are you so anti-privatisation? Is it better to leave it as it is then? Or shall we do a Corbyn, borrow some more to pay for it and penalise me and others who earn good money and work their arse off to cover the bill?

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by AndyEssex330d

As the healthcare system over here isn't privatised I have no evidence to back it up. That works both ways.

The Royal Mail being privatised was the best thing that could have been done. I work incredibly closely with them. Their prices are far lower than they would be if publicly owned. In an economy with inflation if you expect any prices to fall then you are delusional. They have also invested heavily to make it more productive, to provide a profit as well as stem the rate of price increases. And the prices being paid are far less now then they were. The stamp accounts for less than 5% of post sent...maybe even less.

Why would it be 3-5 times more? Where is the proof of that? Has their been published research on it then directly comparing the Av. Cost of healthcare in the US with the potential cost over here?

And when I retire I will happily continue to pay for my healthcare as I know the cost to the NHS in my older age is more than my younger years, If i know it will be the case I can prepare for it, and 3-5k a year isn't a great deal to prepare for.

They wouldn't reduce the tax bill substantially, NI would need to go, but maybe if they do not and they aren't throwing hundreds of billions into the NHS black hole every year the national debt...which every country except bloody Norway has by the way... would be far less in my opinion, if exist at all.

It is just my opinion and you have yours, however a publicly owned NHS has failed...so why are you so anti-privatisation? Is it better to leave it as it is then? Or shall we do a Corbyn, borrow some more to pay for it and penalise me and others who earn good money and work their arse off to cover the bill?

I'm saying 3 to 5 times more than here because that's what it costs now compared to our private care. And I don't think you'll get more than a tiny token reduction in tax or NI.

And I'm anti privatisation specifically the way it is being done now. By stealth and with no mandate. I think that healthcare and education should be free for all, with controls to stop abuse of the NHS. See previous posts.

I do not think the current tendering and privatising of services within the NHS is the way forward. It uses the same people, at the same rates of pay, using the same equipment and managed by nearly all the same people. And then adds a margin. Plus a lot of the providers are out of their depth. My wife's team has to go in to support privatised mental health services that have been privatised already because they Cabot cope, due mainly to incompetence, all at the tax payers cost.

I believe in healthcare for all, not just those that can pay. Therefore it has to be paid for by the government. I don't believe in privatising things paid for out of public money. Once privatised prices can be hiked and hiked at future tenders. Once privatised, it won't go back, so we can be held to ransome.

Things bought by people or businesses where there's a choice, yes I agree with it. British Rail, British Steel, Royal Mail, British Telecom, all fine. NHS, education, prisons not fine.

And I'm glad £5k a year isn't a lot out of your pension for something that currently costs almost nothing to the average pensioner. It will be a lot out of mine and my wife's, and quite a lot of people's. What do you suggest for those that simply can't afford it? No healthcare?

[AndyTo]

Originally Posted by Alex440

And I'm anti privatisation specifically the way it is being done now. By stealth and with no mandate. I think that healthcare and education should be free for all, with controls to stop abuse of the NHS. See previous posts.

I agree, healthcare should be free, however some tough decisions need to be made.
Trying to keep it brief, a year ago i had a disc blow in my spine and spent a week in an NHS hospital and could do nothing but watch how they operated, it was a complete shambles. Both spinal specialists were on holiday so no one could look at my MRI results, which took longer than expected as they forgot to book me in for a day.
I saw a different nurse each day, while brilliant and all totally committed they were all unfamiliar with the ward, so everything took twice as long as it should.
When asked when the specialists would be back, i got a shrug of the shoulders from a junior doctor.
I was on Morphine for pain, they gave me 3 days supply and told to see GP for more, explained i can't actully walk to get more, got another shrug of the shoulders.

I went private, it was like i'd landed on a different planet, went to a small private hospital and was utterly gobsmaked at the service, if private hospital is permier league, the general hospital was like my 6 year olds footy game down the park.
The 2 hospitals are 2 miles apart geographically, but could be opposite sides of the galaxy for service.


As for free education, i was the first year of tuition fees at Uni and saw the number of wasters only going to Uni as they didn't want to get a job in the real world, and if someone is prepared to give them money for 3 years of tossing it off, or for most of them, until they get kicked out, they're preparred to spend it!
So i agree with some tuition fee, to keep the dossers out, maybe have some post course reimbursement? I don't have the answer, just know that free Uni isn't the best way to spend what resourse we have right now and £9kpa is totally unacceptable.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by AndyTo

I agree, healthcare should be free, however some tough decisions need to be made.
Trying to keep it brief, a year ago i had a disc blow in my spine and spent a week in an NHS hospital and could do nothing but watch how they operated, it was a complete shambles. Both spinal specialists were on holiday so no one could look at my MRI results, which took longer than expected as they forgot to book me in for a day.
I saw a different nurse each day, while brilliant and all totally committed they were all unfamiliar with the ward, so everything took twice as long as it should.
When asked when the specialists would be back, i got a shrug of the shoulders from a junior doctor.
I was on Morphine for pain, they gave me 3 days supply and told to see GP for more, explained i can't actully walk to get more, got another shrug of the shoulders.

I went private, it was like i'd landed on a different planet, went to a small private hospital and was utterly gobsmaked at the service, if private hospital is permier league, the general hospital was like my 6 year olds footy game down the park.
The 2 hospitals are 2 miles apart geographically, but could be opposite sides of the galaxy for service.


As for free education, i was the first year of tuition fees at Uni and saw the number of wasters only going to Uni as they didn't want to get a job in the real world, and if someone is prepared to give them money for 3 years of tossing it off, or for most of them, until they get kicked out, they're preparred to spend it!
So i agree with some tuition fee, to keep the dossers out, maybe have some post course reimbursement? I don't have the answer, just know that free Uni isn't the best way to spend what resourse we have right now and £9kpa is totally unacceptable.

Sorry, I agree, some form of fees is fine for uni. I just don't agree with current school education policy and reducing spending so much that parents have to contribute.

[JustChris]

Opens thread to see if Alex is still going...yup.

Looks at other stuff

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by JustChris

Opens thread to see if Alex is still going...yup.

Looks at other stuff

But stopped long enough to leave some more kind words.

[AndyEssex330d]

Originally Posted by Alex440

I'm saying 3 to 5 times more than here because that's what it costs now compared to our private care. And I don't think you'll get more than a tiny token reduction in tax or NI.

And I'm anti privatisation specifically the way it is being done now. By stealth and with no mandate. I think that healthcare and education should be free for all, with controls to stop abuse of the NHS. See previous posts.

I do not think the current tendering and privatising of services within the NHS is the way forward. It uses the same people, at the same rates of pay, using the same equipment and managed by nearly all the same people. And then adds a margin. Plus a lot of the providers are out of their depth. My wife's team has to go in to support privatised mental health services that have been privatised already because they Cabot cope, due mainly to incompetence, all at the tax payers cost.

I believe in healthcare for all, not just those that can pay. Therefore it has to be paid for by the government. I don't believe in privatising things paid for out of public money. Once privatised prices can be hiked and hiked at future tenders. Once privatised, it won't go back, so we can be held to ransome.

Things bought by people or businesses where there's a choice, yes I agree with it. British Rail, British Steel, Royal Mail, British Telecom, all fine. NHS, education, prisons not fine.

And I'm glad £5k a year isn't a lot out of your pension for something that currently costs almost nothing to the average pensioner. It will be a lot out of mine and my wife's, and quite a lot of people's. What do you suggest for those that simply can't afford it? No healthcare?

To be honest I agree with you, with regards to the way things are privatised now. It simply needs completely privatising, or to completely come back under public control. Not a half way house which ends up costing more.

3-5 times more as it is now isn't comparable to how it would be privatised (similar to the USA), so I struggle to believe that would be the cost. I firmly believe my private healthcare would cost less than the tax element plus what i pay on private healthcare now.

I think education and access to basic healthcare should be free. Uni should not be free, at all, it should be paid for.

For those who do not prepare for ill health when planning pensions and the rest are not covering all bases. It should be a priority. I am fortunate I have 40 years before I retire, plenty of time to plan. For those closer to that number - I am unsure of the answer. I just know I shouldn't have to pay for a continuing black hole of cash getting deeper and deeper, neither should anyone.