May refused to rule out selling the NHS.

US companies are waiting like hawks to profit from the sell off of the profit making parts of the NHS.
Which will  cost  everyone a whole lot of money.

Good luck trying to find a private A&E.

The clue is Hunt the Khunt has already written a book on privatising the NHS. He has form. And motive.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-hunt-privatise-nhs-tories-privatising-private-insurance-market-replacement-direct-democracy-a6865306.html

http://news.sky.com/story/row-as-pm-refuses-to-rule-out-nhs-inclusion-in-post-brexit-us-trade-deal-11240160

IF Britain returns this Tory guvm'nt at the next election...

Than they will only have themselves to blame for any continuing sell-offs and running down of public services and utilities, with their ongoing privitisation and tax-reduction agendas..

Emigrating must be looking better and better to more and more Brits by the day ?

to be fair the brits don't have a lot of choice, the US has all the power in the negotiations and The US wants to profit from the ill health of the British.
As we said before they Thumbed their nose at the Kindly EU that was going to give them a good fair deal, the Uk will find it much harder when they have to negotiate post-brexit deals with other not so kindly nations.

veya_victaous wrote:to be fair the brits don't have a lot of choice, the US has all the power in the negotiations and The US wants to profit from the ill health of the British.
As we said before they Thumbed their nose at the Kindly EU that was going to give them a good fair deal, the Uk will find it much harder when they have to negotiate post-brexit deals with other not so kindly nations.

I am not sure who are the mythical "we" who said that - unless you have taken upon yourself the privilege of using the pluralis maiestatis - but your claim, be it collective or singular, that the Kindly (sic) EU was going to give the UK a "good fair deal" in the current negotiations is something that should be treated with the greatest circumspection, and indeed suspicion.

Anyone in this country who can claim even modest knowledge of the machinations of the Brussels Commission knows full well that the brief of chief EU negotiator Michele Barnier has always been to give the UK government a hard time with little, if any, quarter offered, let alone conceded.

The principal reason? Simply pour encourager les autres.

There is a lot of dissatisfaction and active opposition to the EU's seemingly inexorable progress towards the formal establishment, probably within the next decade, of a United States of Europe which is the known objective of the unelected EU Commission, and this in the main reason for the dangerous rise of increasingly nationalist groups in other member countries, including Germany and France.

And we are also seeing growing opposition, which I fear will almost certainly descend into violent civil disorder, to the enforcement by Brussels of even greater mass immigration along similar lines to Germany's deeply flawed open door policy into the former Warsaw Pact countries that are the EU's most recent members and who now, apparently, see very real threats to both their distinctive national cultures and their relatively newly found freedom from political subjugation and control by the former Soviet Union.

If that happens, then there will be no need for some of you here to continually scream "racist" and "fascist" at practically anyone. here or anywhere else, who has the temerity to disagree with your far Left opinions...you will have plenty of real targets out there to choose from.

Well said Fred !

nicko wrote:Well said Fred !

 Nicko, you don't even know what he said.  Translate pluralis maiestatis.  Tell us what pour encourager les autres means, if you can.  Your post sounds like: Listen to my friend here, he's got big words!  

Whatever you may say about the EU, on this question it is bound to be superior to the open (US) market.  Otherwise, it gives no incentive to join.  A disappointment it may be, but none of the arguments amount to a statement that the open market (US) offers a better deal.

Turning to the US, Medicare and the ACA, there are a lot of coverage lapses even amid the good intentions of the law.  Medicare only pays 80% of expenses, and the insurance companies have ballooned the remaining 20% (called: 'gap-coverage') into a profitable rip-off, almost as expensive as they formerly got for all of it.  Another rip-off is in the cost of drugs, where mark-ups can be as much as 10,000%.  Pharmas use the myth of Research & Development to  justify the high costs, when they weren't even involved in the development of the pharmaceuticals.

Let's face it...your body is a profit-making enterprise for them.  If they could, they would harvest your organs without conscience.  Like a reverse-mortgage on your home, they would tout a retirement income if only you'd sign over your vaginal tissue, liver and pancreas.

I don't speak French Quill, but I got the gist of it !

You sound like a bit of a snob to me, as we say in England.............all mouth ,no trousers.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:Well said Fred !

 Nicko, you don't even know what he said.  Translate pluralis maiestatis.  Tell us what pour encourager les autres means, if you can.  Your post sounds like: Listen to my friend here, he's got big words!  

Whatever you may say about the EU, on this question it is bound to be superior to the open (US) market.  Otherwise, it gives no incentive to join.  A disappointment it may be, but none of the arguments amount to a statement that the open market (US) offers a better deal.

Turning to the US, Medicare and the ACA, there are a lot of coverage lapses even amid the good intentions of the law.  Medicare only pays 80% of expenses, and the insurance companies have ballooned the remaining 20% (called: 'gap-coverage') into a profitable rip-off, almost as expensive as they formerly got for all of it.  Another rip-off is in the cost of drugs, where mark-ups can be as much as 10,000%.  Pharmas use the myth of Research & Development to  justify the high costs, when they weren't even involved in the development of the pharmaceuticals.

Let's face it...your body is a profit-making enterprise for them.  If they could, they would harvest your organs without conscience.  Like a reverse-mortgage on your home, they would tout a retirement income if only you'd sign over your vaginal tissue, liver and pancreas.

My post was based on opinions formed by having 30 years' professional experience of working with the EU and its various institutions, including having attended several sessions of the EU Parliament, sitting in on a number of committees in an advisory capacity, being a member of my employers' support staff in briefings and lobbying of departmental heads and even Commissioners and knowing enough about certain aspects of EU policy, activity and interests to have been invited to tutor university students on relevant degree course.

"Having big words" is purely incidental, I assure you.

I know damn all about your healthcare system, but I cherish that which we have in the UK and would never support any government that attempted to "privatise" either its clinical role or its guiding principles of provision of treatment and care of all who need it, free of charge (although some services, such as prescriptions, have to be paid for by most patients).

Indeed any government that attempted to do so would not last long.

But I simply cannot accept the suggestion that anciliary services such as cleaning and catering cannot be run more efficiently, competently and economically by private enterprise than by the state. Nor can I see the logic in not exploiting the expertise, research facilities, management capability and investment potential of private companies even if they do profit from them.

nicko wrote: I don't speak French Quill,   but I got the gist of it !

You sound like a bit of a snob to me,    as we say in England.............all mouth ,no trousers.    

Sorry nicko, didn't mean to sound uppity. It wasn't a general criticism on you, but specifically the affirmation that you understood what he was saying.

It reminded me of a time when I lived in NYC, and the Italian American Civil Rights movement was on-going. Mafia boss Joseph Colombo was a financial supporter, using the pc movement as cover for his many criminal enterprises. It was quite humorous.

Colombo would appear on TV with a CUNY professor, who would typically articulate the principles in highfalutin words. Colombo's role was limited to: yeah, yeah...what he said.

It's not just for you, nicko. I guess I'm attuned these days to the situation. I could apply the same joke to Trump, and it would be even more appropriate.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:to be fair the brits don't have a lot of choice, the US has all the power in the negotiations and The US wants to profit from the ill health of the British.
As we said before they Thumbed their nose at the Kindly EU that was going to give them a good fair deal, the Uk will find it much harder when they have to negotiate post-brexit deals with other not so kindly nations.

I am not sure who are the mythical "we" who said that - unless you have taken upon yourself the privilege of using the pluralis maiestatis -  but your claim, be it collective or singular, that the Kindly (sic) EU was going to give the UK a "good fair deal" in the current negotiations is something that should be treated with the greatest circumspection, and indeed suspicion.

Anyone in this country who can claim even modest knowledge of the machinations of the Brussels Commission knows full well that the brief of chief EU negotiator Michele Barnier has always been to give the UK government a hard time with little, if any, quarter offered, let alone conceded.

The principal reason? Simply pour encourager les autres.

There is a lot of dissatisfaction and active opposition to the EU's seemingly inexorable progress towards the formal establishment, probably within the next decade, of a United States of Europe which is the known objective of the unelected EU Commission, and this in the main reason for the dangerous rise of increasingly nationalist groups in other member countries, including Germany and France.

And we are also seeing growing opposition, which I fear will almost certainly descend into violent civil disorder, to the enforcement by Brussels of even greater mass immigration along similar lines to Germany's deeply flawed open door policy into  the former Warsaw Pact countries that are the EU's most recent members and who now, apparently, see very real threats to both their distinctive national cultures and their relatively newly found freedom from political subjugation and control by the former Soviet Union.

If that happens, then there will be no need  for some of you here to continually scream "racist" and "fascist" at practically anyone. here or anywhere else, who has the temerity to disagree with your far Left opinions...you will have plenty of real targets out there to choose from.

We as in Wolf and me or Aussies

you know, people that from nations that have been making trade deals without the support of a huge economic union.

and I think You like Many Brits Over inflate the strength of your position in regard to trade negotiation

And as you so Aptly point out the biggest issue is the Hill shepherd mentality of Europeans in regards to their 'distinctive national cultures' and fear of adaption to a globalised world.

veya_victaous wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I am not sure who are the mythical "we" who said that - unless you have taken upon yourself the privilege of using the pluralis maiestatis -  but your claim, be it collective or singular, that the Kindly (sic) EU was going to give the UK a "good fair deal" in the current negotiations is something that should be treated with the greatest circumspection, and indeed suspicion.

Anyone in this country who can claim even modest knowledge of the machinations of the Brussels Commission knows full well that the brief of chief EU negotiator Michele Barnier has always been to give the UK government a hard time with little, if any, quarter offered, let alone conceded.

The principal reason? Simply pour encourager les autres.

There is a lot of dissatisfaction and active opposition to the EU's seemingly inexorable progress towards the formal establishment, probably within the next decade, of a United States of Europe which is the known objective of the unelected EU Commission, and this in the main reason for the dangerous rise of increasingly nationalist groups in other member countries, including Germany and France.

And we are also seeing growing opposition, which I fear will almost certainly descend into violent civil disorder, to the enforcement by Brussels of even greater mass immigration along similar lines to Germany's deeply flawed open door policy into  the former Warsaw Pact countries that are the EU's most recent members and who now, apparently, see very real threats to both their distinctive national cultures and their relatively newly found freedom from political subjugation and control by the former Soviet Union.

If that happens, then there will be no need  for some of you here to continually scream "racist" and "fascist" at practically anyone. here or anywhere else, who has the temerity to disagree with your far Left opinions...you will have plenty of real targets out there to choose from.

We as in Wolf and me or Aussies

you know, people that from nations that have been making trade deals without the support of a huge economic union.

and I think You like Many Brits Over inflate the strength of your position in regard to trade negotiation

And as you so Aptly point out the biggest issue is the Hill shepherd mentality of Europeans in regards to their 'distinctive national cultures' and fear of adaption to a globalised world.

Perhaps, Veya, some of we "hill shepherds" of the currently sovereign nations of Europe are less than enthusiastic about the prospect of a "United States of Europe" created by an unelected collective dictatorship that sees no reason for seeking the approval of ordinary citizens as to whether or not they wish to be part of it.

This sort of exercise was last attempted within the living memory of some of us.

The unelected dictators at the time, by the way, were the leadership of the National Socialist German Workers Party (Leader, Herr A Hitler),
.
We all know how that particular attempt to bring the "hill shepherds" to order ended.

May I take it that you yourself would not be averse to mandatory "membership" of a South East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere originally created by one H Hito and his cronies?

The NHS is now not workable as a system or affordable

Its time we looked towards the EU and the rest of the world, that have far better health systems than we do.

The NHS is no longer the number 1 system in the world. In fact its way down the list. Many European systems, surpass ours.

Its time we recognized that.

http://nordic.businessinsider.com/the-16-countries-with-the-worlds-best-healthcare-systems-2017-1/

As Alan Johnson and Anna Soubry blindly defended the NHS despite being confronted with dire statistics on its health outcomes, Kate Andrews of the Institute of Economic Affairs made a compelling case for reform on This Week. Soubs and Johnson showing politicians see the NHS as a religion as they treated Kate’s sensible suggestions as heresy…

https://order-order.com/2018/02/09/ieas-kate-andrews-schools-alan-johnson-anna-soubry-swiss-health-system/

Video on link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv48mLNjLLo

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I am not sure who are the mythical "we" who said that - unless you have taken upon yourself the privilege of using the pluralis maiestatis -  but your claim, be it collective or singular, that the Kindly (sic) EU was going to give the UK a "good fair deal" in the current negotiations is something that should be treated with the greatest circumspection, and indeed suspicion.

Anyone in this country who can claim even modest knowledge of the machinations of the Brussels Commission knows full well that the brief of chief EU negotiator Michele Barnier has always been to give the UK government a hard time with little, if any, quarter offered, let alone conceded.

The principal reason? Simply pour encourager les autres.

There is a lot of dissatisfaction and active opposition to the EU's seemingly inexorable progress towards the formal establishment, probably within the next decade, of a United States of Europe which is the known objective of the unelected EU Commission, and this in the main reason for the dangerous rise of increasingly nationalist groups in other member countries, including Germany and France.

And we are also seeing growing opposition, which I fear will almost certainly descend into violent civil disorder, to the enforcement by Brussels of even greater mass immigration along similar lines to Germany's deeply flawed open door policy into  the former Warsaw Pact countries that are the EU's most recent members and who now, apparently, see very real threats to both their distinctive national cultures and their relatively newly found freedom from political subjugation and control by the former Soviet Union.

If that happens, then there will be no need  for some of you here to continually scream "racist" and "fascist" at practically anyone. here or anywhere else, who has the temerity to disagree with your far Left opinions...you will have plenty of real targets out there to choose from.

We as in Wolf and me or Aussies

you know, people that from nations that have been making trade deals without the support of a huge economic union.

and I think You like Many Brits Over inflate the strength of your position in regard to trade negotiation

And as you so Aptly point out the biggest issue is the Hill shepherd mentality of Europeans in regards to their 'distinctive national cultures' and fear of adaption to a globalised world.

Perhaps, Veya, some of we "hill shepherds" of the currently sovereign nations of Europe are less than enthusiastic about the prospect of a "United States of Europe" created by an unelected collective dictatorship that sees no reason for seeking the approval of ordinary citizens as to whether or not they wish to be part of it.

This sort of exercise was last attempted within the living memory of some of us.

The unelected dictators at the time, by the way,  were the leadership of the National Socialist German Workers Party (Leader, Herr A Hitler),
.
We all know how that particular attempt to bring the "hill shepherds" to order ended.

May I take it that you yourself would not be averse to mandatory "membership" of a South East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere originally created by one H Hito and his cronies?

We were the main nation driving the TPP once the USA pulled out, no votes required

we already span an entire continent too, we are a single nation about the size of what the United states of Europe sets out to be
Maybe They should of called it the Commonwealth of Europe to keep the hill shepherds happy 

veya_victaous wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Perhaps, Veya, some of we "hill shepherds" of the currently sovereign nations of Europe are less than enthusiastic about the prospect of a "United States of Europe" created by an unelected collective dictatorship that sees no reason for seeking the approval of ordinary citizens as to whether or not they wish to be part of it.

This sort of exercise was last attempted within the living memory of some of us.

The unelected dictators at the time, by the way,  were the leadership of the National Socialist German Workers Party (Leader, Herr A Hitler),
.
We all know how that particular attempt to bring the "hill shepherds" to order ended.

May I take it that you yourself would not be averse to mandatory "membership" of a South East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere originally created by one H Hito and his cronies?

We were the main nation driving the TPP once the USA pulled out, no votes required

we already span an entire continent too, we are a single nation about the size of what the United states of Europe sets out to be
Maybe They should of called it the Commonwealth of Europe to keep the hill shepherds happy 

Why on earth do you describe hundreds of millions of Europeans a certain way?
You number no more than 24 million
Population of Europe is 743 million

Europe is slightly smaller than Australia, which means you have not faced the kind of problems that you will face in the far future. That Europe does now

Hill shepherd?

This come from a nation of a majority of farmers?

The irony