Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[Confusion of VIs]

38 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

You’re a glass half empty sort of chap aren’t you!

With almost perfect timing Whitehall warns on lack of post-Brexit trade deals 

It seems the glass is almost bone dry rather than half empty.

[markyh]

17 minutes ago, aheadofthecurve said:

Why do you insist that a film is representative of anything other than the fiction that is that film? That really paints a picture of your naivety as well as an inability to articulate your own position.

Perhaps I and my family are in the poorer camp but that does not necessitate a private healthcare system being prohibitively expensive for any of us - especially since competitive healthcare would be far cheaper than government mandate healthcare. 

It's a documentary on how the American poor are screwed over by their private for profit healthcare system! The NHS, Canadian and French healthcare systems are all in it as better & fairer ways to do it, all "socialist" systems. Your ideal system is fantasyland. A for profits system would not compete to drive down prices and increase service, they would collude, bribe government to pass laws in their favour, to ensure you pay as much as possible for as little treatment as possible, as that makes them the most profit. 

You want to pay 500% more for simple Asthma drugs every month because capped perscriptions costs don't exist in your private for profit healthcare system, your ill health is a machine to make the shareholders money, the laws they get passed stop you legally getting cheap drugs, bring them in from Ireland say, and you are arrested if you get caught with them and thrown in jail. 

Crazy, I guess you don't own a house with six figure equity or major investments to sell to cover serious ill health, and you want a private for profit healthcare system? You are terribly naïve my friend. I hope you Niece gets 100% better but I would worry for you if the UK healthcare system ever went private. 

For example, I have high blood pressure and early arthritis in one knee, I have 4 perscriptions of tablets every month, 3 different blood pressure drugs and naproxen for the knee. NHS perscriptions costs would mean £34.40 pcm but as its "socialist" I pay £8.shpcm for an annual PPC card and can have as many prescribed drugs as I wish. 

Under a pure for profit rigged private system, probably £200pcm.  Don't believe me, find a USA citizen who can afford insurance how much their monthly drugs are over the counter. You will wince. 

Trust me older and wiser, what we pay in NI even if all of it was for the NHS is very very good value.  Plus the less you earn, the less you pay, not earning, you don't have to pay. You will just become a walking ATM for a Private healthcare system, and when you cant pay, they will let to rot. 

But you have the right to disagree. Why not move to the USA for 5 years try it out, see how you get on if you get sick. A flight home may be cheaper than a hospital visit!

[IMHAL]

4 hours ago, Peter Hun said:

Please put him in your ignore list, he's obviously a banned user who is violating forum policy with another identity.

Sage advice.....easy to get drawn into it.....moral.....don't feed the trolls....any of them.

[Riedquat]

2 hours ago, aheadofthecurve said:

Freedom of movement was largely a corporate desire in order to exploit cheaper labour from poorer nations without actually having to do anything to help improve that nation's governance or infrastructure. A fantastic opportunity from the most vicious and exploitative side of the EU that can only be described as a coporatocracy but that did very little to secure anything in terms of worker's rights.

Although as others have fairly pointed out the UK was at the forefront of encouraging that. Another disconnect between the people and the politicians there. Freedom of movement prior to EU expansion was pretty much entirely a 100% positive thing, with (mostly) roughly economically equivalent countries involved so there wasn't much pressure and hence movement in any one particular direction (although places indundated with British retirees might beg to differ). Under those circumstances the concept worked, and it's a crying shame that the EU pushed beyond that. It wasn't perfect before then, not by any means, and was probably already on the path to failure (it would be a surprise if it wasn't, pretty much everything else in the world is) but it is a shame it got so wilfully broken beyond repair.

Don't agree with you in the slightest about healthcare though!

Edited January 18, 2019 by Riedquat

[ebull]

Just now, Riedquat said:

Although as others have fairly pointed out the UK was at the forefront of encouraging that. Another disconnect between the people and the politicians there. Freedom of movement prior to EU expansion was pretty much entirely a 100% positive thing, with (mostly) roughly economically equivalent countries involved so there wasn't much pressure and hence movement in any one particular direction (although places indundated with British retirees might beg to differ). Under those circumstances the concept worked, and it's a crying shame that the EU pushed beyond that. It wasn't perfect before then, not by any means, and was probably already on the path to failure (it would be a surprise if it wasn't, pretty much everything else in the world is) but it is a shame it got so wilfully broken beyond repair.

Don't agree with you in the slightest about healthcare though!

Curious:

DO you oppose [see as "on the path to failure"] FOM within the UK?

How about FOM between counties in England or between London boroughs?

How about FOM between US states?

What's the difference?

My opinion is that FOM should become akin to [ie not quite but almost] a human right. Every person should get FOM to everywhere. Of course they should not have right to access to state support in regions they have not contributed. And they should lose that right as soon as they are convicted of any felony crime.

I voted leave in part because it's clear the EU want a rich enclave which inevitably involves death on the borders as those in the poor regions surrounding them try to get in. That's their direction and it looks unlikely to change [unless our departure triggers a process leading to it's collapse].

A simple useful measure would be to allow immigrants in Turkey entry to the EU when they deposit the 5k they are paying to crims for a boat seat to gov at the border. Deal is they can come and look for a month. If they leave and commit no crime before the date stamped, money is returned at the departure gate. Otherwise they lose it [and are deported and banned permanently]. I am guessing many would look around at the streets not paved in gold and then leave collecting their 5k on the way out. In any case they have a different situation to now. Do they want their 5k back or not?

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

Although as others have fairly pointed out the UK was at the forefront of encouraging that. Another disconnect between the people and the politicians there. Freedom of movement prior to EU expansion was pretty much entirely a 100% positive thing, with (mostly) roughly economically equivalent countries involved so there wasn't much pressure and hence movement in any one particular direction (although places indundated with British retirees might beg to differ). Under those circumstances the concept worked, and it's a crying shame that the EU pushed beyond that. It wasn't perfect before then, not by any means, and was probably already on the path to failure (it would be a surprise if it wasn't, pretty much everything else in the world is) but it is a shame it got so wilfully broken beyond repair.

Don't agree with you in the slightest about healthcare though!

It's also worth pointing out that

• it was the UK that drove the expansion into the East, against opposition from France and to some extent Germany
• no one has been able to produce any evidence that FoM has had anything other than a very marginal +/- effect on wages
• FoM now only accounts for around a quarter of migration and is declining
• by the time we leave it will be back in rough balance - the 100% positive thing you refer to

 

 

[markyh]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

 

Don't agree with you in the slightest about healthcare though!

For aheadofthecurve.  Watch this, have a think, then as someone who cant afford private healthcare (mostly essentially almost non profit) in the UK, really tell me you want this for you and your family in the UK?  12 years old and still 90% accurate despite obahmacare. so many things you as a brit will take for granted.  This is what you will get if you give up universal healthcare for private for profit healthcare, whichever way it's paid for, and the worlds best systems are like ours, singlepay. 

 

[GrizzlyDave]

Leave with no WA on 30Mar is now 7/2 on paddy power.

Down from 7/1 earlier this week.

tick tock

[IMHAL]

5 hours ago, markyh said:

For aheadofthecurve.  Watch this, have a think, then as someone who cant afford private healthcare (mostly essentially almost non profit) in the UK, really tell me you want this for you and your family in the UK?  12 years old and still 90% accurate despite obahmacare. so many things you as a brit will take for granted.  This is what you will get if you give up universal healthcare for private for profit healthcare, whichever way it's paid for, and the worlds best systems are like ours, singlepay. 

 

Our NHS may not be perfect but it is cherished by the British public.... and rightly so. They have always delivered for me and mine... you won't get any joy with trying to convince some of our recent inmates, many of their their views do not align with the vast majority.

[GrizzlyDave]

We created the NHS in 1948, many many years before we joined the EU!!!

[btl_hater]

18 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

We created the NHS in 1948, many many years before we joined the EU!!!

It was created because of what the working man had gone through during WW2. Since then, usually with the help of the Tories, there has been consistent chipping away at the NHS by lobbyists and companies looking to make big bucks that a US style privatisation would bring.

[GrizzlyDave]

5 minutes ago, btl_hater said:

It was created because of what the working man had gone through during WW2. Since then, usually with the help of the Tories, there has been consistent chipping away at the NHS by lobbyists and companies looking to make big bucks that a US style privatisation would bring.

My point is that it was created outside of the EU and can continue  to serve the nation outside of the EU.

[zugzwang]

23 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

My point is that it was created outside of the EU and can continue  to serve the nation outside of the EU.

The NHS is as much a part of British self-identity as the Royal Family and a cuppa tea. Rees-Mogg and Johnson would have to work day and night to destroy it.

[cock-eyed octopus]

Dunno what's happened to Sky, they've gone all leavery.

They actually unearthed two (count 'em) leave students!!!!!!!!! I didn't think they existed. Sort of unicorn type things.

 

[winkie]

14 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

The NHS is as much a part of British self-identity as the Royal Family and a cuppa tea. Rees-Mogg and Johnson would have to work day and night to destroy it.

They would love it to become a greater part, part privatised (already small part)......until to big to fail......private profits, public looses and the not as well off looses.....?

[IMHAL]

12 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

The NHS is as much a part of British self-identity as the Royal Family and a cuppa tea. Rees-Mogg and Johnson would have to work day and night to destroy it.

.....a hard brexit will go along way to ensuring that the NHS is starved of cash...that is what they want and that is all they have to do, the rest will fall into place for them once they have achieved this goal. And if, as 'some' hard brexiteers are suggesting, we also default on our obligations (aka 39bn), the ensuing economic meltdown will absolutely guarantee the privatisation of healthcare amongst other things.

[winkie]

Best to try and stay healthy and young else any insurance premiums could be prohibitive??

[markyh]

1 minute ago, IMHAL said:

.....a hard brexit will go along way to ensuring that the NHS is starved of cash...that is what they want and that is all they have to do, the rest will fall into place for them once they have achieved this goal. And if, as 'some' hard brexiteers are suggesting, we also default on our obligations (aka 39bn), the ensuing economic meltdown will absolutely guarantee the privatisation of healthcare amongst other things.

Still don't think they could manage it. It would take one election pledge from Labour to restore the NHS to full public and reform all tories laws on this, I have voted tory for 32 years now, but if they did this next GE I would immediately vote Labour.

[winkie]

10 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

.....a hard brexit will go along way to ensuring that the NHS is starved of cash...that is what they want and that is all they have to do, the rest will fall into place for them once they have achieved this goal. And if, as 'some' hard brexiteers are suggesting, we also default on our obligations (aka 39bn), the ensuing economic meltdown will absolutely guarantee the privatisation of healthcare amongst other things.

Isn't that what happened to British Rail??

[IMHAL]

4 minutes ago, winkie said:

Isn't that what happened to British Rail??

I thought BR was a result of the quasi competitive market experiment/policy, Tory lead and continued by (new) Labour. Same with the NHS... 

Edited January 18, 2019 by IMHAL

[zugzwang]

1 minute ago, winkie said:

Isn't that what happened to British Rail??

Another Tory omnishambles!

[IMHAL]

21 minutes ago, markyh said:

Still don't think they could manage it. It would take one election pledge from Labour to restore the NHS to full public and reform all tories laws on this, I have voted tory for 32 years now, but if they did this next GE I would immediately vote Labour.

You would hope so and I would vote for them... however, you still need money to do this. The reality is policy is necessarily constrained by our financial situation.

Edited January 18, 2019 by IMHAL

[Riedquat]

8 hours ago, ebull said:

Curious:

DO you oppose [see as "on the path to failure"] FOM within the UK?

I thought we had a facepalm smiley somewhere. A question based on the premise that there's no real difference internally, within a country, and externally. It's also making the assumption that I was saying FoM before expansion was the path to failure, which isn't what I said (the pressure for expansion and ever increasing integration was). It also implies the part where I said it worked very well before expansion went right over your head.

In short, 1/10, must try harder.

[Riedquat]

1 hour ago, btl_hater said:

It was created because of what the working man had gone through during WW2. Since then, usually with the help of the Tories, there has been consistent chipping away at the NHS by lobbyists and companies looking to make big bucks that a US style privatisation would bring.

Playing devil's advocate a bit as medicine gets more sophisticated new treatments will get more expensive. Those in turn will get cheaper over time but since we're a long way off having perfect medicine, even if it's solved the lion's share of problems (before you question that think of all the things that killed people 200 years ago that are pretty much a non-issue now) there'll be more new expensive stuff coming along for quite some time. At its formation how many big, expensive, non mass produced bits of equipment did the NHS need? The x-ray machine was probably the limit. So it'll inevitably get more expensive with time, in a game of diminishing returns, so how that's managed needs to be considered. It's not comparable with the post WWII period.

[Peter Hun]

16 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

.....a hard brexit will go along way to ensuring that the NHS is starved of cash...that is what they want and that is all they have to do, the rest will fall into place for them once they have achieved this goal. And if, as 'some' hard brexiteers are suggesting, we also default on our obligations (aka 39bn), the ensuing economic meltdown will absolutely guarantee the privatisation of healthcare amongst other things.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-funding-spending-government-national-audit-office-conservatives-matt-hancock-a8733016.html

The fundermental issue the uk faces is the Baby Boomers started hitting retirement  in 2011.

There will be a 100% increase in much older living pensioners requiring much more expensive care.

At the same time the working population will decline due to rebounding demographics. 

So there will be a drastically reduced workforce available (nhs is short 100k staff already)to look after this mass of sick old people and the shortage will increase the wage bill even further. 

2008 loaded the uk with a barely sustainable debt load so we can't borrow our way out. 

Blairs solution was increase tax paying workforce with Christians from the East if Europe.

2016 killed that plan and made the economic situation even worse.

The only option is to cut public expenditure. Drastically. Kiss the NHS goodbye.