Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

fatcat posted:
Resurrection posted:

Boy, you guys are idealistic with other peoples’ money. I have to assume you live in rented or perhaps subsidised accommodation, don’t actually own a vehicle, have no savings and, if you have kids, no aspirations to leave them a penny. 

Me, I have my own home, my own cars, plenty of savings as well as  kids and grandkids who deserve my money more than anyone you may nominate. 

It might be a better idea to encourage your kids and grandkids to go and earn a living for themselves.

Have you ever heard of the term altruism.

And that, of course, is the choice offered to the electorate when there is a general election - or would be if at the time of elections there are competent parties offering those choices, and provided that other policies they have domnot outweigh those particular ones.

Hungryhalibut posted:
Resurrection posted:
Hungryhalibut posted:

The tories destroyed most of the country’s industrial base in the past and now they seem happy to let the health service collapse, so I’ll accept links between past and current behaviour. Anyone who says that’s a stupid over simplistic comment needs to consider how linking labour policies of the 70s to the current manifesto is any different. 

The Laffer curve is an interesting thing, though it can be minimised by joining up the tax system so that tax cannot be avoided. 

Boy, you guys are idealistic with other peoples’ money. I have to assume you live in rented or perhaps subsidised accommodation, don’t actually own a vehicle, have no savings and, if you have kids, no aspirations to leave them a penny. 

Me, I have my own home, my own cars, plenty of savings as well as  kids and grandkids who deserve my money more than anyone you may nominate. 

I have my own home, savings and children. But it’s not all about me, me, me. 

Hilarious! If it wasn't for me, me, me and people like me actually paying taxes then we'd be even more stuffed than we are now. But, enough is enough and although I continue to pay taxes on my pensions and savings as well as Council Tax, I feel not the slightest compunction to pay a penny more. Nope, nada, niente, nichts, rien, nothing! 

Innocent Bystander posted:
fatcat posted:
Resurrection posted:

Boy, you guys are idealistic with other peoples’ money. I have to assume you live in rented or perhaps subsidised accommodation, don’t actually own a vehicle, have no savings and, if you have kids, no aspirations to leave them a penny. 

Me, I have my own home, my own cars, plenty of savings as well as  kids and grandkids who deserve my money more than anyone you may nominate. 

It might be a better idea to encourage your kids and grandkids to go and earn a living for themselves.

Have you ever heard of the term altruism.

And that, of course, is the choice offered to the electorate when there is a general election - or would be if at the time of elections there are competent parties offering those choices, and provided that other policies they have domnot outweigh those particular ones.

I don’t see where you’re coming from there.

Political parties who want to win, only offer things to the voters that are beneficial to the voters in order to gain votes.

One of the major benefits of being in the EU, is, they take huge sums of money from the UK government. (your taxes) and redistribute it to the people who need it most.

fatcat posted:
Resurrection posted:

Boy, you guys are idealistic with other peoples’ money. I have to assume you live in rented or perhaps subsidised accommodation, don’t actually own a vehicle, have no savings and, if you have kids, no aspirations to leave them a penny. 

Me, I have my own home, my own cars, plenty of savings as well as  kids and grandkids who deserve my money more than anyone you may nominate. 

It might be a better idea to encourage your kids and grandkids to go and earn a living for themselves.

Have you ever heard of the term altruism.

Don't be presumptuous about my kids who all own their own homes, work, pay taxes and send their kids to public (private) schools, altruistically freeing spaces for the more 'needy'. 

Huge posted:
Resurrection posted:

<snip>

I love the way that Remoaners think

<snip>

Clearly, from your constant repeated trite insults you have absolutely no idea what the remainers think, and have no intention to understand their position either.

But glad you like it.

(See, I can also reverse the meaning of things by taking them out of context!)

Way too oblique for me, Huge. I'm sure there is a point in there somewhere but you seem to have got all your words jumbled up. 

Innocent Bystander posted:
fatcat posted:
Resurrection posted:

Boy, you guys are idealistic with other peoples’ money. I have to assume you live in rented or perhaps subsidised accommodation, don’t actually own a vehicle, have no savings and, if you have kids, no aspirations to leave them a penny. 

Me, I have my own home, my own cars, plenty of savings as well as  kids and grandkids who deserve my money more than anyone you may nominate. 

It might be a better idea to encourage your kids and grandkids to go and earn a living for themselves.

Have you ever heard of the term altruism.

And that, of course, is the choice offered to the electorate when there is a general election - or would be if at the time of elections there are competent parties offering those choices, and provided that other policies they have domnot outweigh those particular ones.

Seriously, IB, have you and Huge been on the sauce tonight? The end of that sentence was an incomprehensible car crash of words.

Resurrection posted:
Hungryhalibut posted:
Resurrection posted:
Hungryhalibut posted:

The tories destroyed most of the country’s industrial base in the past and now they seem happy to let the health service collapse, so I’ll accept links between past and current behaviour. Anyone who says that’s a stupid over simplistic comment needs to consider how linking labour policies of the 70s to the current manifesto is any different. 

The Laffer curve is an interesting thing, though it can be minimised by joining up the tax system so that tax cannot be avoided. 

Boy, you guys are idealistic with other peoples’ money. I have to assume you live in rented or perhaps subsidised accommodation, don’t actually own a vehicle, have no savings and, if you have kids, no aspirations to leave them a penny. 

Me, I have my own home, my own cars, plenty of savings as well as  kids and grandkids who deserve my money more than anyone you may nominate. 

I have my own home, savings and children. But it’s not all about me, me, me. 

Hilarious! If it wasn't for me, me, me and people like me actually paying taxes then we'd be even more stuffed than we are now. But, enough is enough and although I continue to pay taxes on my pensions and savings as well as Council Tax, I feel not the slightest compunction to pay a penny more. Nope, nada, niente, nichts, rien, nothing! 

And I have paid every single penny of tax, and national insurance, due through all my 46 years of working, and will be paying on my pension when I receive that - but I very much value things like having a good health service that is free when I need it (and it is good, even though it currently has significant problems), and having education for my children again free at the point of delivery, and having some form of safety net for peoplecwho fall om hard times (though it needs better policing against abuse). And if all that peace of mind means contributing a higher proportion of tax, it would be money well spent

Resurrection posted:
fatcat posted:
Resurrection posted:

Boy, you guys are idealistic with other peoples’ money. I have to assume you live in rented or perhaps subsidised accommodation, don’t actually own a vehicle, have no savings and, if you have kids, no aspirations to leave them a penny. 

Me, I have my own home, my own cars, plenty of savings as well as  kids and grandkids who deserve my money more than anyone you may nominate. 

It might be a better idea to encourage your kids and grandkids to go and earn a living for themselves.

Have you ever heard of the term altruism.

Don't be presumptuous about my kids who all own their own homes, work, pay taxes and send their kids to public (private) schools, altruistically freeing spaces for the more 'needy'. 

Hmmm.

So, you making a huge issue about leaving them your money, but, you say they don’t actually need your money.

fatcat posted:
Innocent Bystander posted:
fatcat posted:
Resurrection posted:

Boy, you guys are idealistic with other peoples’ money. I have to assume you live in rented or perhaps subsidised accommodation, don’t actually own a vehicle, have no savings and, if you have kids, no aspirations to leave them a penny. 

Me, I have my own home, my own cars, plenty of savings as well as  kids and grandkids who deserve my money more than anyone you may nominate. 

It might be a better idea to encourage your kids and grandkids to go and earn a living for themselves.

Have you ever heard of the term altruism.

And that, of course, is the choice offered to the electorate when there is a general election - or would be if at the time of elections there are competent parties offering those choices, and provided that other policies they have domnot outweigh those particular ones.

I don’t see where you’re coming from there.

Political parties who want to win, only offer things to the voters that are beneficial to the voters in order to gain votes.

One of the major benefits of being in the EU, is, they take huge sums of money from the UK government. (your taxes) and redistribute it to the people who need it most.

My point about political parties was that they offer a package of policies, some of which I may agree with, and others fundamentally disagree with, and other parties may be vice versa, so choice is often a balance of least worst. I the 9or 10  elections in which I voted when I lived in the UK i did at some time vote for at least  conservative, labour, liberal and SDLP. (As an aside, I never did, though actually wich I had, vote for the Monster Raving Loony partie - because in the end that sums up politics more than any other name!)

as for EU, it has a lot of faults, but has not been all bad - what was needed was to cure its faults, not throw the baby out with the bathwater...

Resurrection posted:
Innocent Bystander posted:
.
 

And that, of course, is the choice offered to the electorate when there is a general election - or would be if at the time of elections there are competent parties offering those choices, and provided that other policies they have domnot outweigh those particular ones.

Seriously, IB, have you and Huge been on the sauce tonight? The end of that sentence was an incomprehensible car crash of words.

Other than the spurious iPad generated m joining ‘do’ and ‘not’, what didn’t you understand? (Reference to my lat post 2 minutes ago may help).

my only sauce tonight has been a Montepulciano  - I don’t know about Huge, whose post I understood (perhaps aided by sauce?)

Resurrection posted:
Hungryhalibut posted:
Resurrection posted:
Hungryhalibut posted:

The tories destroyed most of the country’s industrial base in the past and now they seem happy to let the health service collapse, so I’ll accept links between past and current behaviour. Anyone who says that’s a stupid over simplistic comment needs to consider how linking labour policies of the 70s to the current manifesto is any different. 

The Laffer curve is an interesting thing, though it can be minimised by joining up the tax system so that tax cannot be avoided. 

Boy, you guys are idealistic with other peoples’ money. I have to assume you live in rented or perhaps subsidised accommodation, don’t actually own a vehicle, have no savings and, if you have kids, no aspirations to leave them a penny. 

Me, I have my own home, my own cars, plenty of savings as well as  kids and grandkids who deserve my money more than anyone you may nominate. 

I have my own home, savings and children. But it’s not all about me, me, me. 

Hilarious! If it wasn't for me, me, me and people like me actually paying taxes then we'd be even more stuffed than we are now. But, enough is enough and although I continue to pay taxes on my pensions and savings as well as Council Tax, I feel not the slightest compunction to pay a penny more. Nope, nada, niente, nichts, rien, nothing! 

It may come as a surprise to you, but as HH has suggested above, many of us who perhaps have a slightly more altruistic view of life and society than you appear to have, also own our own houses, own our own car(s), and have sufficient savings to allow us to live out our lives in relative comfort. Many of us are also of the opinion that those of us who are fortunate enough to be in this position should contribute our fair share in the way of taxes, and if that means an increase in taxation for the more well off amongst us in order to help finance the NHS and other critical public services, then so be it.

Now, you may believe that there is no such thing as 'Society'. I recall that a former PMs once declared as much. You may believe that everyone should simply be left to fend for themselves, and that the concept of the better off contributing a proportionately greater part of their income in the form of higher taxes in order to fund services such as the NHS is unfair. I don't know you, so I have no way of knowing if you do hold these beliefs in full or in part, but your comments and your attempt to ridicule those who feel differently certainly suggest that you do.

I remember having a lengthy conversation whilst in the States not so long ago with the owner of a private medical centre about the impact of Barack Obama's healthcare policies. He believed that it was immoral for the better off to be forced to pay any more tax than the less well off, and offered his opinion that the concept of a National Health Service funded by taxation such as we have in the UK was 'evil'. I won't repeat his opinion of Obama, but I was pretty dumbstruck by his position, particularly so since he claimed to be religious, but he was of the opinion that his viewpoint was not at all at odds with his religion.

It appears that an increasing number of people in the UK feel the same way. Altruism now appears to be a dirty word to some. 

 

      

 

     

Innocent Bystander posted:
Resurrection posted:
Innocent Bystander posted:
.
 

And that, of course, is the choice offered to the electorate when there is a general election - or would be if at the time of elections there are competent parties offering those choices, and provided that other policies they have domnot outweigh those particular ones.

Seriously, IB, have you and Huge been on the sauce tonight? The end of that sentence was an incomprehensible car crash of words.

Other than the spurious iPad generated m joining ‘do’ and ‘not’, what didn’t you understand? (Reference to my lat post 2 minutes ago may help).

my only sauce tonight has been a Montepulciano  - I don’t know about Huge, whose post I understood (perhaps aided by sauce?)

IB strangely I also understood your post (despite the concerted depredations of the Montepulciano and the iPad in their combined attempt to scupper your meaning!); so although the post could have been a bit better expressed, the meaning should sill have been quite clearer to anyone who has retained a clear thinking head.

Incidentally the only liquids I've been imbibing all day, are water and coffee!

Hmack posted:

I remember having a lengthy conversation whilst in the States not so long ago with the owner of a private medical centre about the impact of Barack Obama's healthcare policies. He believed that it was immoral for the better off to be forced to pay any more tax than the less well off, and offered his opinion that the concept of a National Health Service funded by taxation such as we have in the UK was 'evil'. I won't repeat his opinion of Obama, but I was pretty dumbstruck by his position, particularly so since he claimed to be religious, but he was of the opinion that his viewpoint was not at all at odds with his religion.

And also in relation to US and health care, sometimes there are suggestions that the problem doesn’t exist because people have private insurance. But that only applies when people can afford the insurance, which the poor often can’t. About 30 years or so  ago I had an uncle who was working as an oil exploration executive, and he spent a few years in Texas. While he was there he was heavily involved with a charity helping those who couldn’t afford insurance to have access to medical treatment. Other than individuals like that  giving up their time, there must have been altruistic people contributing to the chatity. I wonder what end of the political and social scales those contributors came from.

I was watching  News at ten on the beeb last night. (Still have got used to it not being at nine though)

........anyway Barnier was explainjng  that if the UK did not want to be in a customs union there would be tariffs and then we needed some chap with nice graphics to explain what this meant as if it was some sort of revelation. 

Mind you an election of Rees-Mogg vs Corbyn would be fascinating and might just be what is. needed to jolt a once great nation out of what seems to be a bad case of delirium. 

I’ve never seen such an apparent lack of basic nous and intelligence in a UK government, just when the world could actually do with a British statesman. 

It’s like the whole government wants to emulate the soccer team vs Iceland. 

It’s quite sad as all this will have a negative effect on the UK and the EU, no winners just losers.

 

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

 

.sjb

Sloop John B posted:

........anyway Barnier was explainjng  that if the UK did not want to be in a customs union there would be tariffs and then we needed some chap with nice graphics to explain what this meant as if it was some sort of revelation. 

I do hope the explained that its not just about tariffs though ... it’s about delays in customs (even if electronic) which will affect the way many industries do business.  That the Just-in-Time type planning that the majority of industry uses would start falling down as even an hours delay (let alone 24 hours) waiting for parts would cause major headaches.

Mind you an election of Rees-Mogg vs Corbyn would be fascinating and might just be what is. needed to jolt a once great nation out of what seems to be a bad case of delirium. 

I would arge that for the most part the UK is still a great nation, however that greatness comes from our ability to work closely and form unions with other nations.  It’s the closing of those relations which will be the undoing of this nation.

It’s like the whole government wants to emulate the soccer team vs Iceland. 

I think TM summed herself up today in her speach marking 100 years of woman’s suffrage... “For women, politics can be as much about listening and learning from others as it is about broadcasting your own views and opinions. And that is all to the good. Because when there isn’t just one way of doing things or one perspective on an issue, our understanding is enriched and we can achieve better outcomes.”

She appears to have forgotten that she is meant to set the direction now she is Prime Minister.  It’s all very well listening to diversity of opinions, but at some point you have to say “Stop, I accept all you are saying, but THIS is what we are going to do”.  At that point you have to have the will and “guts” to sack the dissenters.

It’s quite sad as all this will have a negative effect on the UK and the EU, no winners just losers.

So true...

If we're resorting ( ) to verse...

 

The order is gone.

Gone the wars, the armies, the answers;
questions are left, the flight continues

Brother fights brother
man fights woman.
For ever, for ever
each fighting themselves eternal;
ongoing, ongoing, ongoing.

Ongoing, ongoing, ongoing,
the circle is closed, the questions open;
the past is gone, the future no more
The moon wends its way,
the stars end in fire.

All alone the passage is made,
The flight continues; the end is certain.

The order is gone.

 

And given that Brexit is becoming an almost religious mantra...

 

The night is cold and late the hour,
alone, deserted in the tower
the lighthouse keeper rigid stands
'though sense be long gone from his hands.

He looks to sea to find the flare
with eyes transfixed in sightless stare,
the flame is gone, the light has died;
long since the time his eyes last cried.

A ship against the rock is thrown;
the Captain cries, the sailors moan.
Each one, alone, is caught and drowned;
Each one, alone, their fate has found.

Submerged in life all are drowned,
for nowhere here can rest be found.
The heart is stone, the mind like lead,
the tower is myth, the watchman dead.

While still the watchman looks to sea
the land remains as dead as he,
upon the rock the tower stands proud,
lost voices calling;
          long and loud.

 

(Both works are reproduced here with the copyright holder's permission)

fatcat posted:
Innocent Bystander posted:
fatcat posted:
Resurrection posted:

Boy, you guys are idealistic with other peoples’ money. I have to assume you live in rented or perhaps subsidised accommodation, don’t actually own a vehicle, have no savings and, if you have kids, no aspirations to leave them a penny. 

Me, I have my own home, my own cars, plenty of savings as well as  kids and grandkids who deserve my money more than anyone you may nominate. 

It might be a better idea to encourage your kids and grandkids to go and earn a living for themselves.

Have you ever heard of the term altruism.

And that, of course, is the choice offered to the electorate when there is a general election - or would be if at the time of elections there are competent parties offering those choices, and provided that other policies they have domnot outweigh those particular ones.

I don’t see where you’re coming from there.

Political parties who want to win, only offer things to the voters that are beneficial to the voters in order to gain votes.

One of the major benefits of being in the EU, is, they take huge sums of money from the UK government. (your taxes) and redistribute it to the people who need it most.

Oh boy, everyone is off on their own tangents tonight. I am assuming Drunker's wine cellar might be considered a great way to redistribute my taxes but am of my own opinion that we can redistribute those taxes quite satisfactorily and more economically ourselves, although you may have noticed that my faith in politicians with any of my own money is not so high, thus eliminating one useless layer of that species very attractive indeed.

Innocent Bystander posted:
Resurrection posted:
Hungryhalibut posted:
Resurrection posted:
Hungryhalibut posted:

The tories destroyed most of the country’s industrial base in the past and now they seem happy to let the health service collapse, so I’ll accept links between past and current behaviour. Anyone who says that’s a stupid over simplistic comment needs to consider how linking labour policies of the 70s to the current manifesto is any different. 

The Laffer curve is an interesting thing, though it can be minimised by joining up the tax system so that tax cannot be avoided. 

Boy, you guys are idealistic with other peoples’ money. I have to assume you live in rented or perhaps subsidised accommodation, don’t actually own a vehicle, have no savings and, if you have kids, no aspirations to leave them a penny. 

Me, I have my own home, my own cars, plenty of savings as well as  kids and grandkids who deserve my money more than anyone you may nominate. 

I have my own home, savings and children. But it’s not all about me, me, me. 

Hilarious! If it wasn't for me, me, me and people like me actually paying taxes then we'd be even more stuffed than we are now. But, enough is enough and although I continue to pay taxes on my pensions and savings as well as Council Tax, I feel not the slightest compunction to pay a penny more. Nope, nada, niente, nichts, rien, nothing! 

And I have paid every single penny of tax, and national insurance, due through all my 46 years of working, and will be paying on my pension when I receive that - but I very much value things like having a good health service that is free when I need it (and it is good, even though it currently has significant problems), and having education for my children again free at the point of delivery, and having some form of safety net for peoplecwho fall om hard times (though it needs better policing against abuse). And if all that peace of mind means contributing a higher proportion of tax, it would be money well spent

Blimey, credit to you IB, you've worked longer than I ever have intended or did. You can, of your own volition, contribute as much tax as you want, just leave me out. I also have to admit that I am very poor at virtue signalling. 

fatcat posted:
Resurrection posted:
fatcat posted:
Resurrection posted:

Boy, you guys are idealistic with other peoples’ money. I have to assume you live in rented or perhaps subsidised accommodation, don’t actually own a vehicle, have no savings and, if you have kids, no aspirations to leave them a penny. 

Me, I have my own home, my own cars, plenty of savings as well as  kids and grandkids who deserve my money more than anyone you may nominate. 

It might be a better idea to encourage your kids and grandkids to go and earn a living for themselves.

Have you ever heard of the term altruism.

Don't be presumptuous about my kids who all own their own homes, work, pay taxes and send their kids to public (private) schools, altruistically freeing spaces for the more 'needy'. 

Hmmm.

So, you making a huge issue about leaving them your money, but, you say they don’t actually need your money.

As you can imagine, I don't like throwing my money around. However, I do help with school fees. If and when my kids, but especially the grandkids, need assistance financially or otherwise then my wife and myself have the time and the money to help.

See, I really am altruistic, but my altruism starts and ends at home; the rest is covered by the taxes I pay and have paid. 

Hmack posted:
Resurrection posted:
Hungryhalibut posted:
Resurrection posted:
Hungryhalibut posted:

The tories destroyed most of the country’s industrial base in the past and now they seem happy to let the health service collapse, so I’ll accept links between past and current behaviour. Anyone who says that’s a stupid over simplistic comment needs to consider how linking labour policies of the 70s to the current manifesto is any different. 

The Laffer curve is an interesting thing, though it can be minimised by joining up the tax system so that tax cannot be avoided. 

Boy, you guys are idealistic with other peoples’ money. I have to assume you live in rented or perhaps subsidised accommodation, don’t actually own a vehicle, have no savings and, if you have kids, no aspirations to leave them a penny. 

Me, I have my own home, my own cars, plenty of savings as well as  kids and grandkids who deserve my money more than anyone you may nominate. 

I have my own home, savings and children. But it’s not all about me, me, me. 

Hilarious! If it wasn't for me, me, me and people like me actually paying taxes then we'd be even more stuffed than we are now. But, enough is enough and although I continue to pay taxes on my pensions and savings as well as Council Tax, I feel not the slightest compunction to pay a penny more. Nope, nada, niente, nichts, rien, nothing! 

It may come as a surprise to you, but as HH has suggested above, many of us who perhaps have a slightly more altruistic view of life and society than you appear to have, also own our own houses, own our own car(s), and have sufficient savings to allow us to live out our lives in relative comfort. Many of us are also of the opinion that those of us who are fortunate enough to be in this position should contribute our fair share in the way of taxes, and if that means an increase in taxation for the more well off amongst us in order to help finance the NHS and other critical public services, then so be it.

Now, you may believe that there is no such thing as 'Society'. I recall that a former PMs once declared as much. You may believe that everyone should simply be left to fend for themselves, and that the concept of the better off contributing a proportionately greater part of their income in the form of higher taxes in order to fund services such as the NHS is unfair. I don't know you, so I have no way of knowing if you do hold these beliefs in full or in part, but your comments and your attempt to ridicule those who feel differently certainly suggest that you do.

I remember having a lengthy conversation whilst in the States not so long ago with the owner of a private medical centre about the impact of Barack Obama's healthcare policies. He believed that it was immoral for the better off to be forced to pay any more tax than the less well off, and offered his opinion that the concept of a National Health Service funded by taxation such as we have in the UK was 'evil'. I won't repeat his opinion of Obama, but I was pretty dumbstruck by his position, particularly so since he claimed to be religious, but he was of the opinion that his viewpoint was not at all at odds with his religion.

It appears that an increasing number of people in the UK feel the same way. Altruism now appears to be a dirty word to some. 

 

      

 

     

I have taken the time to read your lengthy response to my comment. Your strongly held views that anyone who has taken responsibility for their life, paid their taxes and demanded littie of the State yet should cough up even more is one held by many Socialists, or at least Socialists to my eyes. The NHS is a hopeless , political basket case that needs complete restructuring including how it should be funded. My preferred model would be something similar to the French one. However, I have certainly not fully researched it.

As to me simply deriding the NHS, my wife was a MIdwife for over thirty years, continuing to practise well beyond her actual retirement age. She only gave up when she felt that thirteen hour shifts, often without even a tea break, were impairing her capability to practise safely even though she has huge reserves of stamina, much more than many women half her age. Still, if you are comfortable with your own wife or yourself, if you are female, being treated by staff who have not had a moment's break and are into their thirteenth working hour then so be it. 

Your American friend sees healthcare from a different perspective and it leaves you puzzled. I have no desire or love for the Ametican Medicare but it is what they know and understand. They think our NHS is substandard and almost third world and they are not far wrong. The continuation of maintaining the NHS as a political holy cow completely free to be abused by anyone arriving on its doorstep is, in my humble opinion, unsustainable. 

Resurrection posted:

I have taken the time to read your lengthy response to my comment. Your strongly held views that anyone who has taken responsibility for their life, paid their taxes and demanded littie of the State yet should cough up even more is one held by many Socialists, or at least Socialists to my eyes. The NHS is a hopeless , political basket case that needs complete restructuring including how it should be funded. My preferred model would be something similar to the French one. However, I have certainly not fully researched it.

As to me simply deriding the NHS, my wife was a MIdwife for over thirty years, continuing to practise well beyond her actual retirement age. She only gave up when she felt that thirteen hour shifts, often without even a tea break, were impairing her capability to practise safely even though she has huge reserves of stamina, much more than many women half her age. Still, if you are comfortable with your own wife or yourself, if you are female, being treated by staff who have not had a moment's break and are into their thirteenth working hour then so be it. 

Your American friend sees healthcare from a different perspective and it leaves you puzzled. I have no desire or love for the Ametican Medicare but it is what they know and understand. They think our NHS is substandard and almost third world and they are not far wrong. The continuation of maintaining the NHS as a political holy cow completely free to be abused by anyone arriving on its doorstep is, in my humble opinion, unsustainable. 

Firstly, funding of the French Healthcare system is not so different from our own:

The French health care system is funded in part by obligatory health contributions levied on all salaries, and paid by employers, employees and the self employed; in part by central government funding; and in part by users who normally have to pay a small fraction of the cost of most acts of health care that they receive.
https://about-france.com/health-care.htm

The first of these is a tax in the same way as our National Insurance contributions are.
The second is funded by general taxation.
The third is different, however it has to remain only only a minor contributor else the system ceases to be 'Universal Healthcare' and would slowly devolve toward the American model, where people can die in their own homes of easily treatable conditions when they simply cannot afford the inflated process of drugs or a hospital bed.

 

Second the UK IS moving to a similar system at the point of delivery:

The health care system in France is made up of a fully-integrated network of public hospitals, private hospitals, doctors and other medical service providers. It is a universal service providing health care for every citizen, irrespective of wealth, age or social status.
https://about-france.com/health-care.htm

This policy is the one the Tories are (admittedly covertly) adopting to alleviate pressure on hospital staff and hospital and through pressure of competition motivate their administrators to make them more efficient.  And for doing this they  are being accused of 'destroying' or 'privatising' the NHS, and being opposed by some people who haven't quite seen how the result will work (and assume the worst) or because of some other people's entrenched political opinions.

 

You state: if you are female, being treated by staff who have not had a moment's break and are into their thirteenth working hour then so be it.

Why are you excluding the other half of the population?  The same applies to other sectors of the nursing profession.
(Besides which I don't think I'm going to need a midwife, but I don't think it appropriate look only at my own situation, and I believe that most women will agree with me here.)

 

France is also struggling with pressure on La Sécurité sociale for the same reasons (of demographic change and the rising of cost as medical interventions become more complex) that bring pressure on the NHS, but by clinging to the single source / single provider centrally funded model for too long, we have made reform and higher efficiency more difficult to achieve.  We are setting out on a long road to reform, and there are still many who, for political reasons, still do not want to make the journey.

Resurrection posted:

"Well, God is in his heaven, and we all want what's his,

But power and greed and corruptible seed is all that there is."  - B. Dylan.

You seem intelligent enough; I'm sure you can come up with something original...

Just quoting a Dylan couplet is rather trite.

Resurrection posted:
 

I have taken the time to read your lengthy response to my comment. Your strongly held views that anyone who has taken responsibility for their life, paid their taxes and demanded littie of the State yet should cough up even more is one held by many Socialists, or at least Socialists to my eyes. The NHS is a hopeless , political basket case that needs complete restructuring including how it should be funded. My preferred model would be something similar to the French one. However, I have certainly not fully researched it.

As to me simply deriding the NHS, my wife was a MIdwife for over thirty years, continuing to practise well beyond her actual retirement age. She only gave up when she felt that thirteen hour shifts, often without even a tea break, were impairing her capability to practise safely even though she has huge reserves of stamina, much more than many women half her age. Still, if you are comfortable with your own wife or yourself, if you are female, being treated by staff who have not had a moment's break and are into their thirteenth working hour then so be it. 

Your American friend sees healthcare from a different perspective and it leaves you puzzled. I have no desire or love for the Ametican Medicare but it is what they know and understand. They think our NHS is substandard and almost third world and they are not far wrong. The continuation of maintaining the NHS as a political holy cow completely free to be abused by anyone arriving on its doorstep is, in my humble opinion, unsustainable. 

The implication of the second sentence in your first paragraph appears to be that 'altruism' is the domain of 'Socialists', and that 'altruism' is something to be derided rather than applauded. This is a point of view that I find very strange indeed. Do you have a similar antipathy towards charities? I suspect not, or at least I hope not.

Your wife, and many like her in the NHS, has very obviously been impacted by the continued underfunding and understaffing of the NHS over a number of years, and whilst I have a particular disdain for the current Government and its lack of respect of the NHS and those who work in it, I certainly do not excuse recent Labour Governments from blame in the running down of the NHS. I too have relatives working as Junior Doctors in the NHS and who too work ridiculously long shifts in Hospital departments that are dangerously understaffed.

You appear to have no desire for an American style Health Service where the disadvantaged with no hope of funding their personal medical insurance are left to fend for themselves, and I am very glad to hear it. You say that your preferred choice would be something along the lines of the French system, and I for one would have no problem with a system of this sort being looked at in this country. As I understand it, the French system is fairly similar to that operating in a number of European countries in that individuals (or organisations they work for) pay for the Health Service by means of ring-fenced contributions akin to our own National Insurance contributions. However, the simple fact is that our Health Service (whatever its structure) has to be adequately funded and staffed, and it is simply the case that the French system is significantly better funded and more appropriately staffed than our own NHS. The French system may provide more choice for individuals who require treatment, but the service itself still needs to be funded and staffed, and it is still the case in France that the better off contribute more to medical insurance than the less well off.

Finally I have to comment on your statement:

"The continuation of maintaining the NHS as a political holy cow completely free to be abused by anyone arriving on its doorstep is, in my humble opinion, unsustainable".   

When discussion of the possibility of Brexit first arose, I was struck by the assertion of many Brexiteers that their personal reasons for voting to leave were nothing to do with xenophobia or immigration. Just like in America, views that would once have been considered to be unhealthy at best or downright nasty at worst are becoming the norm. Whilst there are no doubt some 'Johnny Foreigners' who abuse the National Health Service system, this is a drop in the ocean compared to the funding and staffing problems now faced by the NHS.    

 

Hmack posted:

<snip>

When discussion of the possibility of Brexit first arose, I was struck by the assertion of many Brexiteers that their personal reasons for voting to leave were nothing to do with xenophobia or immigration. Just like in America, views that would once have been considered to be unhealthy at best or downright nasty at worst are becoming the norm. Whilst there are no doubt some 'Johnny Foreigners' who abuse the National Health Service system, this is a drop in the ocean compared to the funding and staffing problems now faced by the NHS.   

Along with much of the argument for Brexit, this reminds me of Flanders and Swan: "A Song of Patriotic Prejudice" ("The English are Best").

Innocent Bystander posted:

On the subject of the net position on Brexit, bearing in mind the difference in knowledge now compared to 18 months ago, This short speech seems very apt:

https://www.facebook.com/PokeH...os/1996384930401790/

I had a quick look at it just before starting to watch PMQ. Personally I find Pat Condell on YouTube much more my taste and amusement. I would be very surprised if any  or many on this site would agree and I certainly won't include a link just in case... 🤓

Hmack posted:
Resurrection posted:
 

I have taken the time to read your lengthy response to my comment. Your strongly held views that anyone who has taken responsibility for their life, paid their taxes and demanded littie of the State yet should cough up even more is one held by many Socialists, or at least Socialists to my eyes. The NHS is a hopeless , political basket case that needs complete restructuring including how it should be funded. My preferred model would be something similar to the French one. However, I have certainly not fully researched it.

As to me simply deriding the NHS, my wife was a MIdwife for over thirty years, continuing to practise well beyond her actual retirement age. She only gave up when she felt that thirteen hour shifts, often without even a tea break, were impairing her capability to practise safely even though she has huge reserves of stamina, much more than many women half her age. Still, if you are comfortable with your own wife or yourself, if you are female, being treated by staff who have not had a moment's break and are into their thirteenth working hour then so be it. 

Your American friend sees healthcare from a different perspective and it leaves you puzzled. I have no desire or love for the Ametican Medicare but it is what they know and understand. They think our NHS is substandard and almost third world and they are not far wrong. The continuation of maintaining the NHS as a political holy cow completely free to be abused by anyone arriving on its doorstep is, in my humble opinion, unsustainable. 

The implication of the second sentence in your first paragraph appears to be that 'altruism' is the domain of 'Socialists', and that 'altruism' is something to be derided rather than applauded. This is a point of view that I find very strange indeed. Do you have a similar antipathy towards charities? I suspect not, or at least I hope not.

Your wife, and many like her in the NHS, has very obviously been impacted by the continued underfunding and understaffing of the NHS over a number of years, and whilst I have a particular disdain for the current Government and its lack of respect of the NHS and those who work in it, I certainly do not excuse recent Labour Governments from blame in the running down of the NHS. I too have relatives working as Junior Doctors in the NHS and who too work ridiculously long shifts in Hospital departments that are dangerously understaffed.

You appear to have no desire for an American style Health Service where the disadvantaged with no hope of funding their personal medical insurance are left to fend for themselves, and I am very glad to hear it. You say that your preferred choice would be something along the lines of the French system, and I for one would have no problem with a system of this sort being looked at in this country. As I understand it, the French system is fairly similar to that operating in a number of European countries in that individuals (or organisations they work for) pay for the Health Service by means of ring-fenced contributions akin to our own National Insurance contributions. However, the simple fact is that our Health Service (whatever its structure) has to be adequately funded and staffed, and it is simply the case that the French system is significantly better funded and more appropriately staffed than our own NHS. The French system may provide more choice for individuals who require treatment, but the service itself still needs to be funded and staffed, and it is still the case in France that the better off contribute more to medical insurance than the less well off.

Finally I have to comment on your statement:

"The continuation of maintaining the NHS as a political holy cow completely free to be abused by anyone arriving on its doorstep is, in my humble opinion, unsustainable".   

When discussion of the possibility of Brexit first arose, I was struck by the assertion of many Brexiteers that their personal reasons for voting to leave were nothing to do with xenophobia or immigration. Just like in America, views that would once have been considered to be unhealthy at best or downright nasty at worst are becoming the norm. Whilst there are no doubt some 'Johnny Foreigners' who abuse the National Health Service system, this is a drop in the ocean compared to the funding and staffing problems now faced by the NHS.    

 

Why do you think I might have suggested that foreigners are the only people who abuse our health services? Wherever the abuse arises it should be confronted and stopped as it results in services being denied to more urgent cases.

Adam Meredith posted:
Resurrection posted:
Personally I find Pat Condell on YouTube much more my taste and amusement. 

Image result for love is the fart of every heart

 

What once was, sensibly, private is now made public.

Not sure exactly what you are alluding to but you’re big enough to go and take a look which was of course my objective. 😂

Resurrection posted:
fatcat posted:

I agree, you can’t label everybody who voted leave a racist.

But, from my personal experience, ALL the racists I know voted leave.

Define racist, and would all your known racists who voted Leave agree with your own personal judgment of them?

Yes. They are openly racist and proud of it.

We seem to have had a bit of deflection into the NHS and altruism.

I haven't looked at the numbers for some time but I think these show that in terms of the total tax burden in the UK (expressed as a percentage of GDP) I think it has for many years stayed pretty much in the same place - from memory around 34% - regardless of the political party in government.  Of course, there's a choice about what it is spent on, but I think that there's general agreement that the best way to generate more revenue to spend, e.g. on improving public services or to fund tax cuts, is to grow the economy. That, I think, is the achilles heel of the Brexiteers because pretty much all the financial forecasts government, academic, international, are forecasting the UK's growth to fall or even reverse in the short to medium terms when the various exit options are modelled. Meanwhile the forecasts for growth within the EU are heading upwards.

Mogg saying he doesn't trust Treasury officials lacks credibility (as well as good manners) because the Brexit camp are failing miserably to come up with any competing and credible economic forecasts to support their argument. In my view this is because they know such forecasts would be shredded by respected and impartial bodies.  So the Brexiteers are continuing to ask the country to ignore the economic forecasts for the UK and to trust them that it will turn out ok. What bank would entertain such a plan should a business come to it seeking financial support?  It seems that we're being asked to put up with a highly damaging impact on the UK's economy as a price worth paying for pursuing an anti-EU ideology!  Surely there are enough MPs in the House of Commons who, when push comes to shove, will put the interests of the UK's economy above party interest and certainly ideology? This might not reverse the result of the referendum but it could mean BINO.

 

       

Resurrection posted:
 
 

Not sure exactly what you are alluding to but you’re big enough to go and take a look which was of course my objective. 

I was diverted to thoughts of how we often take a guilty, scatalogical delight in our own farts yet eschew and objurgate those of others. Condell is to your liking because his 'wind' is familiar. Not so for me.

If I'm going to be caught in a diving suit with right wing bore I prefer the entertainment value of the batshit crazy masters of the trade.

                                                                         

MDS posted:

We seem to have had a bit of deflection into the NHS and altruism.

I haven't looked at the numbers for some time but I think these show that in terms of the total tax burden in the UK (expressed as a percentage of GDP) I think it has for many years stayed pretty much in the same place - from memory around 34% - regardless of the political party in government.  Of course, there's a choice about what it is spent on, but I think that there's general agreement that the best way to generate more revenue to spend, e.g. on improving public services or to fund tax cuts, is to grow the economy. That, I think, is the achilles heel of the Brexiteers because pretty much all the financial forecasts government, academic, international, are forecasting the UK's growth to fall or even reverse in the short to medium terms when the various exit options are modelled. Meanwhile the forecasts for growth within the EU are heading upwards.

Mogg saying he doesn't trust Treasury officials lacks credibility (as well as good manners) because the Brexit camp are failing miserably to come up with any competing and credible economic forecasts to support their argument. In my view this is because they know such forecasts would be shredded by respected and impartial bodies.  So the Brexiteers are continuing to ask the country to ignore the economic forecasts for the UK and to trust them that it will turn out ok. What bank would entertain such a plan should a business come to it seeking financial support?  It seems that we're being asked to put up with a highly damaging impact on the UK's economy as a price worth paying for pursuing an anti-EU ideology!  Surely there are enough MPs in the House of Commons who, when push comes to shove, will put the interests of the UK's economy above party interest and certainly ideology? This might not reverse the result of the referendum but it could mean BINO.

 

       

Mike, I think you have summarised the situation quite succinctly.

Add Reply

Likes (4)
ResurrectionjprJockymacwanderer
×
×
×
×