Tories set for biggest vote share since Sir Edward Heath’s 1970 victory, poll reveals

This did make me laugh

eddie wrote:This did make me laugh

+1

Sadly Britain is a country of economic conservatives.

Fortunately Britain is a country of social liberals too.
The best thing David Cameron ever did was to make the Conservatives more liberal on social policy. He made them electable in the 21st century.

Unfortunately for those of who favour state run healthcare are nationalised public services the above means we are unlikely to get what we want for a long while.

The Tories will swallow the UKIP vote almost entirely.

The Tories will retain much of what they took from the Liberal Democrats in 2015.

Labour, with that bumbling ignoramous Abbott and her like, will gift even more votes to the Right..

Most one sided vote since 1997 I imagine.

Eilzel wrote:Sadly Britain is a country of economic conservatives.

Fortunately Britain is a country of social liberals too.
The best thing David Cameron ever did was to make the Conservatives more liberal on social policy. He made them electable in the 21st century.

Unfortunately for those of who favour state run healthcare are nationalised public services the above means we are unlikely to get what we want for a long while.

lets not forget labour privatised far more of the nhs than the coalition or tories.

They also dropped us in it by letting Hospitals be built and paying for them on "Hire Purchase".

nicko wrote:They also dropped us in it by letting Hospitals be built and paying for them on "Hire Purchase".

look I am sure numerous people will tell you £300billion for £50 or £60 billions of assets is a good thing

+1 Again !

#GE2017 polls over the weekend & Monday

ICM
Con 46%
Lab 28%

Yougov
Con 47%
Lab 28%

ORB
Con 46%
Lab 31%

Opinium
Con 46%
Lab 30%


labour surge doing well I see.

22point lead now
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-poll-tracker-2017-10266121?clearcache=1

Eilzel wrote:Sadly Britain is a country of economic conservatives.

Fortunately Britain is a country of social liberals too.
The best thing David Cameron ever did was to make the Conservatives more liberal on social policy. He made them electable in the 21st century.

Unfortunately for those of who favour state run healthcare are nationalised public services the above means we are unlikely to get what we want for a long while.

I really can't get very agitated at the thought of more private sector involvement in healthcare. The fact is that our income and other taxes simply cannot afford to pay for all the expensive advances in technology, the massive investment required in R&D work on new and more effective drugs and medicines and the sheer numbers of people needed to run both health and association car services.

Nor is borrowing going to cover the needs.

One simply has to look at the huge increase in demand for all sectors of health provision, for which all political parties must shoulder some of the responsibility, and particularly the Labour Party whose "open door" immigration policy, while they were in power all those years, was based - on the eventual admission by one of their own senior policy advisors - on the two major objectives of "rubbing the Right's nose in diversity" and "changing society for all time"; i.e. the creation of a future client electorate with an in-built obligation to Labour.

Even accepting the obvious requirement for private sector companies to return a profit to their shareholders in order to pay for their own staffing and business costs etc., I would suggest that what these companies can offer in terms of expertise and initial investment in continuing scientific and technological advancement presents a pretty good deal.

It's also interesting that those who now appear to be most in favour of nationalisation of other public services probably never lived through the years when things like the railways, coal, gas and electricity and telecommunications were under state control.

As someone who did so, the last thing I would wish to see is a return to those days: With telephones alone I had to wait a year and a half for my first telephone line...and then it had to be shared with a neighbour.

I n the nationalised industries most "workers" did not give a shit about their companies, it was "I'M all right Jack" i'LL still get paid whatever happens to the Public.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Sadly Britain is a country of economic conservatives.

Fortunately Britain is a country of social liberals too.
The best thing David Cameron ever did was to make the Conservatives more liberal on social policy. He made them electable in the 21st century.

Unfortunately for those of who favour state run healthcare are nationalised public services the above means we are unlikely to get what we want for a long while.

I really can't get very agitated at the thought of more private sector involvement in healthcare. The fact is that our income and other taxes simply cannot afford to pay for all the expensive advances in technology,  the massive investment required in R&D work on new and more effective drugs and medicines and the sheer numbers of people needed to run both health and association car services.

Nor is borrowing going to cover the needs.

One simply has to look at the huge increase in demand for all sectors of health provision, for which all political parties must shoulder some of the responsibility, and particularly the Labour Party whose "open door" immigration policy, while they were in power all those years, was based - on the eventual admission by one of their own senior policy advisors - on the two major objectives of "rubbing the Right's nose in diversity" and "changing society for all time"; i.e. the creation of a future client electorate with an in-built obligation to Labour.

Even accepting the obvious requirement for private sector companies to return a profit to their shareholders in order to pay for their own staffing and business costs etc., I would suggest that what these companies can offer in terms of expertise and initial investment in continuing scientific and technological advancement presents a pretty good deal.

It's also interesting that those who now appear to be most in favour of nationalisation of other public services probably never lived through the years when things like the railways, coal, gas and electricity and telecommunications were under state control.

As someone who did so, the last thing I would wish to see is a return to those days: With telephones alone I had to wait a year and a half for my first telephone line...and then it had to be shared with a neighbour.

if everyone was dying before they retired or just after like when the NHS started we may be able to afford it, however that is not the case and the nhs can take some of the blame there for keeping people alive too long with treatments that cost a fortune.
And of course when it becomes the WorldHealthService it does not make matters better either.

#LabourSurge

Eilzel wrote:Sadly Britain is a country of economic conservatives.

Fortunately Britain is a country of social liberals too.
The best thing David Cameron ever did was to make the Conservatives more liberal on social policy. He made them electable in the 21st century.

Unfortunately for those of who favour state run healthcare are nationalised public services the above means we are unlikely to get what we want for a long while.

Agreed on the later and for people to say we cannot afford is basically ridiculous, where most people would be willing to pay more in taxes or national insurance to ensure the NHS continues as one of the worlds best. For some to blame immigration fails to understand that the NHS would have collapsed without foreign trained staff. This country has a massive shortfall in skilled trained medically personnel and those within the care industry. Of which is only going to get worse with an ageing population. By 2050, a quarter of the population will be over 65. And of the two age brackets that are more susceptible to health problems are the very young and the elderly. This means we are going to need more money that ever to care for the elderly both medically and through care. This means being able to balance out the population. Which at present we will not have enough to care for the elderly come 2050. 

So the arguments placed forward over the costs of R&D, when there should never be because some companies are pricing way over the top for drugs, when the actual cost to produce them is far cheaper than charged. This is what is wrong. There is something very ethically wrong when companies look to make vast profits out of the pharmaceutical industry for health care. Even then the majority of this country would pay more to ensure that are citizens get the best. So Freds argument is to me a surrender argument and not a solution to any of these problems. To privatize more, means the rich get the best treatment whilst the rest suffer.

Thorin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Sadly Britain is a country of economic conservatives.

Fortunately Britain is a country of social liberals too.
The best thing David Cameron ever did was to make the Conservatives more liberal on social policy. He made them electable in the 21st century.

Unfortunately for those of who favour state run healthcare are nationalised public services the above means we are unlikely to get what we want for a long while.

Agreed on the later and for people to say we cannot afford is basically ridiculous, where most people would be willing to pay more in taxes or national insurance to ensure the NHS continues as one of the worlds best. For some to blame immigration fails to understand that the NHS would have collapsed without foreign trained staff. This country has a massive shortfall in skilled trained medically personnel and those within the care industry. Of which is only going to get worse with an ageing population. By 2050, a quarter of the population will be over 65. And of the two age brackets that are more susceptible to health problems are the very young and the elderly. This means we are going to need more money that ever to care for the elderly both medically and through care. This means being able to balance out the population. Which at present we will not have enough to care for the elderly come 2050. 

So the arguments placed forward over the costs of R&D, when there should never be because some companies are pricing way over the top for drugs, when the actual cost to produce them is far cheaper than charged. This is what is wrong. There is something very ethically wrong when companies look to make vast profits out of the pharmaceutical industry for health care. Even then the majority of this country would pay more to ensure that are citizens get the best. So Freds argument is to me a surrender argument and not a solution to any of these problems. To privatize more, means the rich get the best treatment whilst the rest suffer.

the drug companies are not a charity they are a business. It is very expensive to create and get a drug to market and for every one they do there are many that dont.
every person in the country could be taxed at 110% and the NHS would still be short of money, it is the nature of the business, keeping people alive is costly. the nhs could go some way to reducing costs by not always buying the most expensive version of drugs and cutting out vanity operations and fertility treatment which are expensive and should be paid for by the people undertaking them.
It should also consider sending people abroad for some operations when they can be done far cheaper than in the UK, even when you include the costs of transport.
whilst the NHS may well need foreign doctors and nurses to fill a shortfall in home grown staff, it does not really have to fill all the ancillary staff with cheap foreign labour when there are over 1 million unemployed in the UK. It certainly should not be employing foreign staff that can claim tax credits and other benefits, when a better use of the money would be moving uk citizens off the unemployment register.

Also a requirement that those trained in the UK are required to work for the NHS for a set number of years before leaving for foreign parts might help fill some of the shortfall of uk doctors and nurses.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Agreed on the later and for people to say we cannot afford is basically ridiculous, where most people would be willing to pay more in taxes or national insurance to ensure the NHS continues as one of the worlds best. For some to blame immigration fails to understand that the NHS would have collapsed without foreign trained staff. This country has a massive shortfall in skilled trained medically personnel and those within the care industry. Of which is only going to get worse with an ageing population. By 2050, a quarter of the population will be over 65. And of the two age brackets that are more susceptible to health problems are the very young and the elderly. This means we are going to need more money that ever to care for the elderly both medically and through care. This means being able to balance out the population. Which at present we will not have enough to care for the elderly come 2050. 

So the arguments placed forward over the costs of R&D, when there should never be because some companies are pricing way over the top for drugs, when the actual cost to produce them is far cheaper than charged. This is what is wrong. There is something very ethically wrong when companies look to make vast profits out of the pharmaceutical industry for health care. Even then the majority of this country would pay more to ensure that are citizens get the best. So Freds argument is to me a surrender argument and not a solution to any of these problems. To privatize more, means the rich get the best treatment whilst the rest suffer.

the drug companies are not a charity they are a business. It is very expensive to create and get a drug to market and for every one they do there are many that dont.
every person in the country could be taxed at 110% and the NHS would still be short of money, it is the nature of the business, keeping people alive is costly. the nhs could go some way to reducing costs by not always buying the most expensive version of drugs and cutting out vanity operations and fertility treatment which are expensive and should be paid for by the people undertaking them.
It should also consider sending people abroad for some operations when they can be done far cheaper than in the UK, even when you  include the costs of transport.
whilst the NHS may well need foreign doctors and nurses to fill a shortfall in home grown staff, it does not really have to fill all the ancillary staff with cheap foreign labour when there are over 1 million unemployed in the UK. It certainly should not be employing foreign staff that can claim tax credits and other benefits, when a better use of the money would be moving uk citizens off the unemployment register.

Also a requirement that those trained in the UK are required to work for the NHS for a set number of years before leaving for foreign parts might help fill some of the shortfall of uk doctors and nurses.

Who said they should be a charity?
The point is they should not charge extortionate prices to make massive profits.

Its unethical and causes cost hikes to the NHS and care for those who need it.

Its not expensive at all to produce many of the drugs on the market.

110% where did you get that bogus number from?

Do you know how much tax provides to the budget?

This is more about how budgets are spent and how the country can afford to pay more in taxes, of which a minimum amount of 1% for those 25k and upwards would be a drastic boost for the NHS.

So you want to send people abroad and not use the NHS?

Wow I am sure that would provide comfort and reassurance to many patients, not.

It certainly does have to fill the ancillary staff and there is a massive shortfall here where many jobs are not taken up by those born here. The point you glaringly miss. You cannot force people into certain employed roles. Of which you seem to think we can

You failed to address the ageing population

Also, who is going to pay for their medical insurance costs, for having treatment abroad?

Welsh Westminster voting intention:
CON: 41% (+1)
LAB: 35% (+5)
PC: 11% (-2)
LDEM: 7% (-1)
UKIP: 4% (-2)

#LabourSurge

I read an article the other day that said...

EU nationals in uk = over 3 million while uk in eu = 1.2 million...

We gave 650 million to eu countries in 2015 for uk nationals healthcare costs while only getting 59 million from eu countries towards costs of eu nationals here...

Also in the same year we paid out a similar amount in unemployment benefits to eu nationals here...

Plus 40% of all eu nationals here are getting one or more kind of in work benefits...


It is also a false argument to claim we need foreigners or nhs would collapse... because if we didnt have so many foreigners here in the first place then the nhs would be able to cope well enough already...!

A couple hundred thousand foreigners in the nhs who we do need, is no justification for millions of others here who we don't need... and who are all also adding extra burdon to nhs and all other public services as well as roads/public transport/housing etc...

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
the drug companies are not a charity they are a business. It is very expensive to create and get a drug to market and for every one they do there are many that dont.
every person in the country could be taxed at 110% and the NHS would still be short of money, it is the nature of the business, keeping people alive is costly. the nhs could go some way to reducing costs by not always buying the most expensive version of drugs and cutting out vanity operations and fertility treatment which are expensive and should be paid for by the people undertaking them.
It should also consider sending people abroad for some operations when they can be done far cheaper than in the UK, even when you  include the costs of transport.
whilst the NHS may well need foreign doctors and nurses to fill a shortfall in home grown staff, it does not really have to fill all the ancillary staff with cheap foreign labour when there are over 1 million unemployed in the UK. It certainly should not be employing foreign staff that can claim tax credits and other benefits, when a better use of the money would be moving uk citizens off the unemployment register.

Also a requirement that those trained in the UK are required to work for the NHS for a set number of years before leaving for foreign parts might help fill some of the shortfall of uk doctors and nurses.

Who said they should be a charity?
The point is they should not charge extortionate prices to make massive profits.

Its unethical and causes cost hikes to the NHS and care for those who need it.

Its not expensive at all to produce many of the drugs on the market.

110% where did you get that bogus number from?

Do you know how much tax provides to the budget?

This is more about how budgets are spent and how the country can afford to pay more in taxes, of which a minimum amount of 1% for those 25k and upwards would be a drastic boost for the NHS.

So you want to send people abroad and not use the NHS?

Wow I am sure that would provide comfort and reassurance to many patients, not.

It certainly does have to fill the ancillary staff and there is a massive shortfall here where many jobs are not taken up by those born here. The point you glaringly miss. You cannot force people into certain employed roles. Of which you seem to think we can

You failed to address the ageing population

they are in the business of making money, in a business that has quite substantial outlays and long time frames to see a return.


I would think the best use of NHS resources is to get the best prices for operations they can.
if the NHS can arrange for operation to be done abroad cheaper than they can be done in the NHS then that should be available, as indeed it already is I believe.

when there are 1million + unemployed in the UK it is not beyond the wit of man to get some of them working for the NHS rather than importing cheap labour from abroad. Are you saying UK citizens are incapable of pushing a mop or wheeling a patient around?
If you turn a job down you are supposed to lose your benefits.

We dont do much for an ageing population when we are employing people on low wages who receive tax credits and other benefits.
I am more than happy to see well qualified immigrants earning good money and paying into the system and not taking benefits of any kind coming to the country.
those on minimum wage are not really net contributors to the exchequer they would pay around £20 a week in tax, and possibly get rather more in tax credits, if they had school age kids then a further drain on scant resources.

Tommy Monk wrote:I read an article the other day that said...

EU nationals in uk = over 3 million while uk in eu = 1.2 million...

We gave 650 million to eu countries in 2015 for uk nationals healthcare costs while only getting 59 million from eu countries towards costs of eu nationals here...

Also in the same year we paid out a similar amount in unemployment benefits to eu nationals here...

Plus 40% of all eu nationals here are getting one or more kind of in work benefits...


It is also a false argument to claim we need foreigners or nhs would collapse... because if we didnt have so many foreigners here in the first place then the nhs would be able to cope well enough already...!

A couple hundred thousand foreigners in the nhs who we do need, is no justification for millions of others here who we don't need... and who are all also adding extra burdon to nhs and all other public services as well as roads/public transport/housing etc...

a radical idea for eu benefits might be they are paid by the persons own country to the country they are living in. I am not so sure EU country's would be so keen on letting people go so easily if that was the case.

Two good posts from The Devil and Tommy, in my OPINION.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Who said they should be a charity?
The point is they should not charge extortionate prices to make massive profits.

Its unethical and causes cost hikes to the NHS and care for those who need it.

Its not expensive at all to produce many of the drugs on the market.

110% where did you get that bogus number from?

Do you know how much tax provides to the budget?

This is more about how budgets are spent and how the country can afford to pay more in taxes, of which a minimum amount of 1% for those 25k and upwards would be a drastic boost for the NHS.

So you want to send people abroad and not use the NHS?

Wow I am sure that would provide comfort and reassurance to many patients, not.

It certainly does have to fill the ancillary staff and there is a massive shortfall here where many jobs are not taken up by those born here. The point you glaringly miss. You cannot force people into certain employed roles. Of which you seem to think we can

You failed to address the ageing population

they are in the business of making money, in a business that has quite substantial outlays and long time frames to see a return.


I would think the best use of NHS resources is to get the best prices for operations they can.
if the NHS can arrange for operation to be done abroad cheaper than they can be done in the NHS then that should be available, as indeed it already is I believe.

when there are 1million + unemployed in the UK it is not beyond the wit of man to get some of them working for the NHS rather than importing cheap labour from abroad. Are you saying UK citizens are incapable of pushing a mop or wheeling a patient around?
If you turn a job down you are supposed to lose your benefits.

We dont do much for an ageing population when we are employing people on low wages who receive tax credits and other benefits.
I am more than happy to see well qualified immigrants earning good money and paying into the system and not taking benefits of any kind coming to the country.
those on minimum wage are not really net contributors to the exchequer they would pay around £20 a week in tax, and possibly get rather more in tax credits, if they had school age kids then a further drain on scant resources.

So you back unethical practices and would rather see people make a profit than help sick people

Failed reasoning and proves what is wrong with a neo-conservative mentality

So if other countries can have operations cheaper abroad, then clearly there is no reason why operations should not be cheaper here of the cost of researching drugs would it not? Its because people are again greedy and place charging extorionate prices over health when there is no need to. Thank you for proving my point its because of greed, that it is far more expensive in this country.

I mean what is far worse is when drugs are introduce to this country replacing others that were actually better. One such example was the treatment for cystitis. It was on the market for years and cost pennies to produce. It was replaced by something far less effective and far more expensive. Hence why we need to adopt the German approach

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/why-medicine-is-cheaper-in-germany/371418/

But then lets look at your absurd reason. Which countries are we talking about here? Have all their staff been vetted as we have within the UK for criminal records with DBS checks? Another reason why many unemployed roles are not filled within the care service and NHS. As nobody can work within the NHS or care if they have criminal records dependent on the length of time after they have been convicted or the seriousness of the crime. A large substantial number of the unemployed have criminal records. In 2014, this was 1.1 million who were out of work. So you wish to forego checks required to work in the industry not only in the UK but abroad.

Wow

To then claim that its simply pushing a broom, shows how out of touch with reality you are or how you can force people into roles in care of ancillary roles they do not want to do. Sounds rather like an authoritarian dictatorship to me. What next slave collars for the unemployed?

When what we should be doing is reducing costs, when its clear it never needs to be this high. What you have is unethical scientists and doctors who are down right greedy

So you claim we don;t do much for the elderly by misdirecting with some drivel about tax credits and benefits. So you think helping those most in need is wrong?
Never heard anything so stupid to be honest.

You then further direct to immigrants and want to introduce a system based on inequality, because you clearly have some xenophobic stance towards them. Why can they not benefit the same as other people in this country? There is no valid reason other than being prejudice as seen and has zero to do with the points at hand. They come to this country and have will end up paying far more into the system than getting out of this than people born here. Those born here get a free education and health care, of which its when most young and the elderly who are more susceptible to illness. So you wish to further make immigrants not benefit like anyone else, even though they will be paying far more into the system (as many return home as migrants) and will never get out of this what those born here will benefit? Seems to me we have a glowing example of prejudice and discrimination based off poor confirmation biased articles from the Daily Mail, sun ect.

The facts are this, how are you going to care for the elderly by 2050 by medically and within care?

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
they are in the business of making money, in a business that has quite substantial outlays and long time frames to see a return.


I would think the best use of NHS resources is to get the best prices for operations they can.
if the NHS can arrange for operation to be done abroad cheaper than they can be done in the NHS then that should be available, as indeed it already is I believe.

when there are 1million + unemployed in the UK it is not beyond the wit of man to get some of them working for the NHS rather than importing cheap labour from abroad. Are you saying UK citizens are incapable of pushing a mop or wheeling a patient around?
If you turn a job down you are supposed to lose your benefits.

We dont do much for an ageing population when we are employing people on low wages who receive tax credits and other benefits.
I am more than happy to see well qualified immigrants earning good money and paying into the system and not taking benefits of any kind coming to the country.
those on minimum wage are not really net contributors to the exchequer they would pay around £20 a week in tax, and possibly get rather more in tax credits, if they had school age kids then a further drain on scant resources.

So you back unethical practices and would rather see people make a profit than help sick people

Failed reasoning and proves what is wrong with a neo-conservative mentality

So if other countries can have operations cheaper abroad, then clearly there is no reason why operations should not be cheaper here of the cost of researching drugs would it not? Its because people are again greedy and place charging extorionate prices over health when there is no need to. Thank you for proving my point its because of greed, that it is far more expensive in this country.

I mean what is far worse is when drugs are introduce to this country replacing others that were actually better. One such example was the treatment for cystitis. It was on the market for years and cost pennies to produce. It was replaced by something far less effective and far more expensive. Hence why we need to adopt the German approach

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/why-medicine-is-cheaper-in-germany/371418/

But then lets look at your absurd reason. Which countries are we talking about here? Have all their staff been vetted as we have within the UK for criminal records with DBS checks? Another reason why many unemployed roles are not filled within the care service and NHS. As nobody can work within the NHS or care if they have criminal records dependent on the length of time after they have been convicted or the seriousness of the crime. A large substantial number of the unemployed have criminal records. In 2014, this was 1.1 million who were out of work. So you wish to forego checks required to work in the industry not only in the UK but abroad.

Wow

To then claim that its simply pushing a broom, shows how out of touch with reality you are or how you can force people into roles in care of ancillary roles they do not want to do. Sounds rather like an authoritarian dictatorship to me. What next slave collars for the unemployed?

When what we should be doing is reducing costs, when its clear it never needs to be this high. What you have is unethical scientists and doctors who are down right greedy

So you claim we don;t do much for the elderly by misdirecting with some drivel about tax credits and benefits. So you think helping those most in need is wrong?
Never heard anything so stupid to be honest.

You then further direct to immigrants and want to introduce a system based on inequality, because you clearly have some xenophobic stance towards them. Why can they not benefit the same as other people in this country? There is no valid reason other than being prejudice as seen and has zero to do with the points at hand. They come to this country and have will end up paying far more into the system than getting out of this than people born here. Those born here get a free education and health care, of which its when most young and the elderly who are more susceptible to illness. So you wish to further make immigrants not benefit like anyone else, even though they will be paying far more into the system (as many return home as migrants) and will never get out of this what those born here will benefit? Seems to me we have a glowing example of prejudice and discrimination based off poor confirmation biased articles from the Daily Mail, sun ect.

The facts are this, how are you going to care for the elderly by 2050 by medically and within care?

when you manage to pull your head out of the sand come back and we can talk

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
they are in the business of making money, in a business that has quite substantial outlays and long time frames to see a return.


I would think the best use of NHS resources is to get the best prices for operations they can.
if the NHS can arrange for operation to be done abroad cheaper than they can be done in the NHS then that should be available, as indeed it already is I believe.

when there are 1million + unemployed in the UK it is not beyond the wit of man to get some of them working for the NHS rather than importing cheap labour from abroad. Are you saying UK citizens are incapable of pushing a mop or wheeling a patient around?
If you turn a job down you are supposed to lose your benefits.

We dont do much for an ageing population when we are employing people on low wages who receive tax credits and other benefits.
I am more than happy to see well qualified immigrants earning good money and paying into the system and not taking benefits of any kind coming to the country.
those on minimum wage are not really net contributors to the exchequer they would pay around £20 a week in tax, and possibly get rather more in tax credits, if they had school age kids then a further drain on scant resources.

So you back unethical practices and would rather see people make a profit than help sick people

Failed reasoning and proves what is wrong with a neo-conservative mentality

So if other countries can have operations cheaper abroad, then clearly there is no reason why operations should not be cheaper here of the cost of researching drugs would it not? Its because people are again greedy and place charging extorionate prices over health when there is no need to. Thank you for proving my point its because of greed, that it is far more expensive in this country.

I mean what is far worse is when drugs are introduce to this country replacing others that were actually better. One such example was the treatment for cystitis. It was on the market for years and cost pennies to produce. It was replaced by something far less effective and far more expensive. Hence why we need to adopt the German approach

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/why-medicine-is-cheaper-in-germany/371418/

But then lets look at your absurd reason. Which countries are we talking about here? Have all their staff been vetted as we have within the UK for criminal records with DBS checks? Another reason why many unemployed roles are not filled within the care service and NHS. As nobody can work within the NHS or care if they have criminal records dependent on the length of time after they have been convicted or the seriousness of the crime. A large substantial number of the unemployed have criminal records. In 2014, this was 1.1 million who were out of work. So you wish to forego checks required to work in the industry not only in the UK but abroad.

Wow

To then claim that its simply pushing a broom, shows how out of touch with reality you are or how you can force people into roles in care of ancillary roles they do not want to do. Sounds rather like an authoritarian dictatorship to me. What next slave collars for the unemployed?

When what we should be doing is reducing costs, when its clear it never needs to be this high. What you have is unethical scientists and doctors who are down right greedy

So you claim we don;t do much for the elderly by misdirecting with some drivel about tax credits and benefits. So you think helping those most in need is wrong?
Never heard anything so stupid to be honest.

You then further direct to immigrants and want to introduce a system based on inequality, because you clearly have some xenophobic stance towards them. Why can they not benefit the same as other people in this country? There is no valid reason other than being prejudice as seen and has zero to do with the points at hand. They come to this country and have will end up paying far more into the system than getting out of this than people born here. Those born here get a free education and health care, of which its when most young and the elderly who are more susceptible to illness. So you wish to further make immigrants not benefit like anyone else, even though they will be paying far more into the system (as many return home as migrants) and will never get out of this what those born here will benefit? Seems to me we have a glowing example of prejudice and discrimination based off poor confirmation biased articles from the Daily Mail, sun ect.

The facts are this, how are you going to care for the elderly by 2050 by medically and within care?

can you explain how it is easier to CRB a person from abroad than someone from teh UK. you now seem to be suggesting that NHS places aren't filled by uk citizens because they are all crooks.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So you back unethical practices and would rather see people make a profit than help sick people

Failed reasoning and proves what is wrong with a neo-conservative mentality

So if other countries can have operations cheaper abroad, then clearly there is no reason why operations should not be cheaper here of the cost of researching drugs would it not? Its because people are again greedy and place charging extorionate prices over health when there is no need to. Thank you for proving my point its because of greed, that it is far more expensive in this country.

I mean what is far worse is when drugs are introduce to this country replacing others that were actually better. One such example was the treatment for cystitis. It was on the market for years and cost pennies to produce. It was replaced by something far less effective and far more expensive. Hence why we need to adopt the German approach

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/why-medicine-is-cheaper-in-germany/371418/

But then lets look at your absurd reason. Which countries are we talking about here? Have all their staff been vetted as we have within the UK for criminal records with DBS checks? Another reason why many unemployed roles are not filled within the care service and NHS. As nobody can work within the NHS or care if they have criminal records dependent on the length of time after they have been convicted or the seriousness of the crime. A large substantial number of the unemployed have criminal records. In 2014, this was 1.1 million who were out of work. So you wish to forego checks required to work in the industry not only in the UK but abroad.

Wow

To then claim that its simply pushing a broom, shows how out of touch with reality you are or how you can force people into roles in care of ancillary roles they do not want to do. Sounds rather like an authoritarian dictatorship to me. What next slave collars for the unemployed?

When what we should be doing is reducing costs, when its clear it never needs to be this high. What you have is unethical scientists and doctors who are down right greedy

So you claim we don;t do much for the elderly by misdirecting with some drivel about tax credits and benefits. So you think helping those most in need is wrong?
Never heard anything so stupid to be honest.

You then further direct to immigrants and want to introduce a system based on inequality, because you clearly have some xenophobic stance towards them. Why can they not benefit the same as other people in this country? There is no valid reason other than being prejudice as seen and has zero to do with the points at hand. They come to this country and have will end up paying far more into the system than getting out of this than people born here. Those born here get a free education and health care, of which its when most young and the elderly who are more susceptible to illness. So you wish to further make immigrants not benefit like anyone else, even though they will be paying far more into the system (as many return home as migrants) and will never get out of this what those born here will benefit? Seems to me we have a glowing example of prejudice and discrimination based off poor confirmation biased articles from the Daily Mail, sun ect.

The facts are this, how are you going to care for the elderly by 2050 by medically and within care?

can you explain how it is easier to CRB a person from abroad than someone from teh UK. you now seem to be suggesting that NHS places aren't filled by uk citizens because they are all crooks.

Many do have criminal records as seen by the numbers unemployed. Though again it depends on how long ago and how serious.
Many do not want to apply because of such checks and believe they would not get employed.
Checks are made on foreign employees also

So is that all you have to counter

Guess your input is over on this then

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So you back unethical practices and would rather see people make a profit than help sick people

Failed reasoning and proves what is wrong with a neo-conservative mentality

So if other countries can have operations cheaper abroad, then clearly there is no reason why operations should not be cheaper here of the cost of researching drugs would it not? Its because people are again greedy and place charging extorionate prices over health when there is no need to. Thank you for proving my point its because of greed, that it is far more expensive in this country.

I mean what is far worse is when drugs are introduce to this country replacing others that were actually better. One such example was the treatment for cystitis. It was on the market for years and cost pennies to produce. It was replaced by something far less effective and far more expensive. Hence why we need to adopt the German approach

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/why-medicine-is-cheaper-in-germany/371418/

But then lets look at your absurd reason. Which countries are we talking about here? Have all their staff been vetted as we have within the UK for criminal records with DBS checks? Another reason why many unemployed roles are not filled within the care service and NHS. As nobody can work within the NHS or care if they have criminal records dependent on the length of time after they have been convicted or the seriousness of the crime. A large substantial number of the unemployed have criminal records. In 2014, this was 1.1 million who were out of work. So you wish to forego checks required to work in the industry not only in the UK but abroad.

Wow

To then claim that its simply pushing a broom, shows how out of touch with reality you are or how you can force people into roles in care of ancillary roles they do not want to do. Sounds rather like an authoritarian dictatorship to me. What next slave collars for the unemployed?

When what we should be doing is reducing costs, when its clear it never needs to be this high. What you have is unethical scientists and doctors who are down right greedy

So you claim we don;t do much for the elderly by misdirecting with some drivel about tax credits and benefits. So you think helping those most in need is wrong?
Never heard anything so stupid to be honest.

You then further direct to immigrants and want to introduce a system based on inequality, because you clearly have some xenophobic stance towards them. Why can they not benefit the same as other people in this country? There is no valid reason other than being prejudice as seen and has zero to do with the points at hand. They come to this country and have will end up paying far more into the system than getting out of this than people born here. Those born here get a free education and health care, of which its when most young and the elderly who are more susceptible to illness. So you wish to further make immigrants not benefit like anyone else, even though they will be paying far more into the system (as many return home as migrants) and will never get out of this what those born here will benefit? Seems to me we have a glowing example of prejudice and discrimination based off poor confirmation biased articles from the Daily Mail, sun ect.

The facts are this, how are you going to care for the elderly by 2050 by medically and within care?

when you manage to pull your head out of the sand come back and we can talk

Copout reply

Which really translate as you surrendering to my points at hand

Tommy Monk wrote:I read an article the other day that said...

EU nationals in uk = over 3 million while uk in eu = 1.2 million...

We gave 650 million to eu countries in 2015 for uk nationals healthcare costs while only getting 59 million from eu countries towards costs of eu nationals here...

Also in the same year we paid out a similar amount in unemployment benefits to eu nationals here...

Plus 40% of all eu nationals here are getting one or more kind of in work benefits...


It is also a false argument to claim we need foreigners or nhs would collapse... because if we didnt have so many foreigners here in the first place then the nhs would be able to cope well enough already...!

A couple hundred thousand foreigners in the nhs who we do need, is no justification for millions of others here who we don't need... and who are all also adding extra burdon to nhs and all other public services as well as roads/public transport/housing etc...

Bloody hell, man! You can't say that here ! It, er, makes sense.....

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I read an article the other day that said...

EU nationals in uk = over 3 million while uk in eu = 1.2 million...

We gave 650 million to eu countries in 2015 for uk nationals healthcare costs while only getting 59 million from eu countries towards costs of eu nationals here...

Also in the same year we paid out a similar amount in unemployment benefits to eu nationals here...

Plus 40% of all eu nationals here are getting one or more kind of in work benefits...


It is also a false argument to claim we need foreigners or nhs would collapse... because if we didnt have so many foreigners here in the first place then the nhs would be able to cope well enough already...!

A couple hundred thousand foreigners in the nhs who we do need, is no justification for millions of others here who we don't need... and who are all also adding extra burdon to nhs and all other public services as well as roads/public transport/housing etc...

Bloody hell, man! You can't say that here ! It, er, makes sense.....

Do you like Teresa May, head?