I'm sorry, but what has the amount an individual pays for their health care got to do with whether or not a country can afford a free for all public NHS??
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
I'm sorry, but what has the amount an individual pays for their health care got to do with whether or not a country can afford a free for all public NHS??
Well he's just offering everything to everyone to get as many votes as possible in order to deny the Tories the majority they were looking for. He knows he's not going to win it, but if he manages to prevent a tory majority, many will see his campaign as a success.
He meant that the US system spends more per person than we spend on the NHS. And we're not a poor country, so the "we can't afford to spend more on the NHS" logic doesn't work.
That's ironic, as Labour's manifesto is costed whereas the Tory manifesto amounts to "ask us after you vote".Well he's just offering everything to everyone to get as many votes as possible in order to deny the Tories the majority they were looking for. He knows he's not going to win it, but if he manages to prevent a tory majority, many will see his campaign as a success.
The only reason to vote conservative is if you're wealthy and don't want to pay a little bit more tax. If you're not, they're only going to make your life harder.
Why the feck does it cost six figures to have a minor op there then?
Or you're a cnut.
Because it's still a market system. If you can't afford to pay for the healthcare, you have to wait until a moment before you die and declare bankruptcy when presented with the bill. Eventually the tax payer will still pay for it, but they'll try to rinse you first. I've heard it referred to as laundered socialism before.
Obviously much of what will be available to spend will be dependant on the economy post brexit. Tories haven't offered the impossible, because they know they will be the ones in power June 9th.
https://uk.isidewith.com/political-quiz
https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/survey/1/select-issues
These might help. If you've been reading manifestos then you're better informed than most.
This must be a first for politicians.vidic blood & sand said:
It's a sign of how relentlessly thick some of the electorate are that they still believe that Labour's manifesto pledges are some sort of extravagant splurge, or an extreme danger to our economy. Wise up.
Relentlessly attacking the poor is a political choice, not a necessity.
Relentlessly attacking the poor is a political choice, not a necessity.
I'm not sure whether this is true or why if it is, but as a matter of interest I know a couple of people that have gone to India for operations. Very comfortable, professional and cheap. The Indian middle classes are very demanding, the service is reportedly brilliant.
Well he's just offering everything to everyone to get as many votes as possible in order to deny the Tories the majority they were looking for. He knows he's not going to win it, but if he manages to prevent a tory majority, many will see his campaign as a success.
Labour's fully costed manifesto has like £3 billion spare for "things" while the Tory's manifesto is "ask us in a bit".
It's bizarre they attack Labour on their manifesto which is costed while Tories haven't even bothered. Don't they realise how stupid they look (Vidic)?
The cost of medical treatment and whether or not a country can afford a free for all NHS are different issues. What I'm saying is that at some stage it's inevitable that the way the NHS is funded will change. Think of the introduction of compulsory national health insurance whereby insurance companies and the government pay for the medical treatment, as is the case with most NHS' in countries who have an NHS.
I hope I've now made clear what I mean.
'Accepting' is a weird turn of phrase. Yes, they realise free movement will be ending as Britain has prioritised this over the economy. No, they haven't shown any willingness to bend on the four principles and allow Britain to cherry pick.
Your attempts to present this as some sort of negotiating coup for the UK is, quite frankly, bizarre. I can only assume it's borne out of a complete failure to inform yourself of the discussion.
And that Brexit is a daft idea and Theresa May will feck up negotiating it presumably.
This just sounds like we're adding a middleman to replace HMRC's role in collecting the money. It's totally unnecessary, especially if it's means tested - which is what a progressive tax is anyway. If there's a shortage of funds, the fix isn't to outsource it. That said, I don't know much about most other health systems.
Well he's just offering everything to everyone to get as many votes as possible in order to deny the Tories the majority they were looking for. He knows he's not going to win it, but if he manages to prevent a tory majority, many will see his campaign as a success.
Labour have been transparent on how they plan to fund their pledges.
What do you mean the crowd was biased?
You know the crowd waiting outside is different from the one in the hall, yes? There's always protestors/supporters that congregate outside political events.
Bullshit, read the IFS costings.
They haven't offered the impossible - they've not offered anything at all. The idea that the uncertainty of Brexit offers a valid excuse for doing so is a load of shite. Every party can face uncertainty after an election; they're still expected to come up with costed plans as to how they intend to manage the economy. The Tories haven't bothered their arses to do so.
For what it's worth I think there's a lot that can be criticised concerning Corbyn's manifesto: it's perhaps too ambitious and a free-market leaning voter would argue it may drive business away from Britain during the Brexit process, but the whole Labour argument is centred around the idea that austerity and cuts haven't worked for the general working population as a whole, and that something substantial is needed to reverse this. That's fair enough. You may disagree with it, but at least they've come up with a costed, albeit ambitious and perhaps overly ambitious plan for what they want to do.
The Tories haven't done any of that. Rudd quite literally defended it by saying people should look at her parties record...which is...well, what the feck does that mean? They've pretty much neglected policy in this election because they presumed they'd win, and because they're trying to argue we have to have May negotiating Brexit because...well, I'm not sure, really.
It's about insurance. The principle is that the insurers' premiums + contribution from the treasury funds the medical treatments.
I've read it. I've seen the flaws in Labour's manifesto. It's still superior to the Tory's manifesto, though.
My father-in-law got his teeth done there. He's Mauritian and maybe fifth gen Indian, so they have cultural ties. Half of our IT department are Indian- no racist, but they value education.
The costs are unfamothably extortionate though. Lord, the adverts too- the 'self-lubricating catheter' when I was in the Caribbean springs to mind.
You can argue that Labour's funding plans don't add up. However, the argument was that Labour haven't been transparent in how they plan to fund their pledges, which simply isn't true!
But that's already what National Insurance is. If that's cut, then all that's happening is you're outsourcing the collection of that money. And if it isn't cut, you're double taxing people for something. If it is cut it would be a complete disaster because that money goes to more than just healthcare. And if stays intact, but people who earn over a certain amount are mandated to buy another insurance package - what's the point? Why not just raise NI contributions from that group of people?
I guess any hope is better than none at this point, particularly regarding the insanely dangerous and incorrect dead-end that is austerity. I think you make a very balanced point.
Do you believe that the renationalisation of four industries will amount to no additional costs for the taxpayer, even without Labour's pledged salary increases? The electorate is going to face a huge bill, one which Labour has neglected to inform them of.
What do you mean the crowd was biased?
OK Lenin, I'm getting Nick to send me water cannon companies.
I'd also argue that manifestos are never fully enacted and are at best a statement of intent. It's almost an irrelevancy whether the exact sums add up, or the exact policies in it are workable or not because it's merely about what the parties will try to do.
I share concerns with elements of Labour's manifesto too, but I think the manifestos starkly present a clear choice: more of the same old shit with the Conservatives, more austerity, more assaults on the weak, poor and vulnerable, the continued chronic underfunding of the NHS and social services or to be bold and choose something different.
Ok, let's assume that the EU intends to keep free movement in the UK, and this is a red line for them, there would be no need to for a proposal including children and grandchildren of EU citizens having the right to be able to move to the UK, because free movement would automatically give them the right, wouldn't it?
Am I talking to a brick wall here?
I could look it up I suppose (maybe in the morning), but does anyone know what our deficit and debt were when the NHS was founded and we built all those homes and introduced so much of the welfare state? I guess we must have been well flush then, right?
It is true. I accept that the snap election probably resulted in rushed out proposals with errors. Tories fecked up school kids' meals, Labour didn't cost in expropriation costs of various industries.
Would be interesting to see if you can take one woman and one man from tonight and decide who you have a threesome with. Goes downhill if you exclude the saucy presenter.
Of course the taxpayer will be hit. Labour is also a tad disingenuous in its rhetoric about taxing solely the rich when they know it'll be a broad section of society that gets hit. The problem I have is that the Tory manifesto consists of extra austerity which it neglects to properly treat.
The most you can charge Labour with is promising more than they can deliver. The Conservatives on the other hand aren't up front about what they're promising (in terms of what it will mean in reduced NHS and school funding). Both parties are selling something and not being entirely up front, but the Tories are selling more austerity.
Yeah, while I can fundamentally understand the argument that taxes should be lowered to incentivise business in a post-Brexit Britain and that any move to increase them and attempt to eliminate austerity is risky, and while I can understand people who would be tempted to vote for that, I'm just not sure it's an argument Labour should be making. There surely has to be a credible major party who are fundamentally arguing against policies the Tories plan to enact.
And, again, plenty would argue that Corbyn's supposedly radical policies of renationalisation and increased taxes are simply him going back to how things used to be. For the most part his manifesto isn't that absurd or outlandish...it's just that it's one Labour haven't really been willing to put forward for a while. And, again, they have their reasons for doing so, but I've got a certain admiration for Corbyn at least trying to present a strong alternative argument to austerity.
I would ask the same of you, but it would be an insult to brick walls.