Farage bashed by charity for suggesting UK ban migrants with HIV

First topic message reminder :

Ukip leader Nigel Farage has been condemned by a leading charity after suggesting that migrants with HIV should be prevented from entering the UK.

Mr Farage reportedly said preventing people with the condition entering the country would be a "good start" in controlling the UK's borders.

The chief executive of HIV/Aids charity Terrence Higgins Trust accused Mr Farage of stooping to a "new level of ignorance" and Labour MP David Lammy said he was "trying to revive the very worst bigotry" of the 1980s.

In an interview with Newsweek Europe, Mr Farage set out the changes he would like to see, including a block on convicted killers being allowed into the UK, referring to the prime suspect in the Alice Gross murder case.

Convicted killer Arnis Zalkalns, from Latvia, was found hanged in Boston Manor Park, west London, on October 4, near where Alice was last seen on August 28 as she walked back to her family home in Hanwell.

"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here," Mr Farage said.

Mr Farage said Ukip "want to control the quantity and quality of people who come" to the UK.

The Daily Mail reported that, asked by Newsweek whether "quality" meant people without a murder conviction, he answered: "Yes. And people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start. And people with a skill. That is what Britain should do."

He went on to say: "I have never said that we should not take refugees. We have a proud record of accepting refugees, and that must be continued."

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/farage-ban-hiv-migrants-from-uk-1.620778

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Opinion is cheap, Tommy.  Make your case, don't just talk about it.

I don't believe it.

@Quill
umm it is sort of true (on social services anyway)
in Australia too our RW still aren't trying to make our health systems as weak as obamacare
Even TM is talking about not letting non citizen immigrant get FREE treatment for things that Citizens of the USA have to pay for
and Our gov't reduces the cost dramatically because it pays the majority of it so it is on it's interests to limit gouging
don't know for UK specifically but here, even private treatment is only about 10-20% the cost compared to the USA.

On Racism and stuff.... well they are sort of in between. most don't seem as hardcore as US racists

I've heard that myth a million times over.  It is true that America missed the socialism period because the US was busy with other things in the latter half of the 19th-century.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_Kingdom  For this reason the US does not have a lot of the social programs that the European nations have (eg, socialized medicine).  But other than the absence of a socialism experiment in this country, it is untrue that the American Democrat is akin to the British Tory just because the Tory has had to accept progress whereas the US Republican has not.

Regardless of the surficial similarities, a Tory/Republican subscribes to a basically individualistic egoism, whereas a Liberal or Labour/Democrat believes less in egoistic selfishness, and more in a social responsibility approach toward humankind.  In a previous post exchange with Didge, you heard me talk about the dual founding of the United States: the Declaration of Independence and/or the Constitution.  That is a universal dichotomy in contemporary ideologies, and a look through that prism shows clearly that the Tory and Republican believe the same things, and in the exact opposite to a Labourite and Democrat.  And therein is the real ideological dividing line.

Look more closely, if you will, at what Ben is saying.

look more closely at what I am saying
either is just the swing of the pendulum, we move forward not in a straight line but a wave pattern. (often we don't see our the swing to our side for what it is as to ourselves it seems forward)

the USA's left hand wave over laps with our (and UK ) right hand wave

And LOL
Liberal is the name of the RW party(economically most RW) here
the middle LW is the Labour party (openly funded by workers unions)
extreme RW ideology is the Christian democrats.
extreme LW ideology is the Greens
there are a bunch of middle RW parties, 'shooters and fishers' and 'Palmer united' are the biggest 2.

our politics is more diverse too, minor parties play a larger role.

What is your point, veya?  You are just giving us labels, not content.

It is true that the US in the center is more conservative than Europe in the center.  It is not true that a British Conservative is the same, or even similar to a Democrat.

It's not just the position of the party.  It's the categorical assumptions and beliefs of the party.  A Democrat does not believe in capitalist individualism, and a Republican does not believe in social democracy...again, we are not talking about labels.  A Tory would never abandon capitalist individualism, even though he might tolerate a move toward social programs.

Original Quill wrote:What is your point, veya?  You are just giving us labels, not content.

It is true that the US in the center is more conservative than Europe in the center.  It is not true that a British Conservative is the same, or even similar to a Democrat.

It's not just the position of the party.  It's the categorical assumptions and beliefs of the party.  A Democrat does not believe in capitalist individualism, and a Republican does not believe in social democracy...again, we are not talking about labels.  A Tory would never abandon capitalist individualism, even though he might tolerate a move toward social programs.

See I question that... No Liberal party member would suggest we make our Health system 'capitalist' as Obamacare. At the core there is still a difference the Whole 'all gov't is bad unless suppressing minorities' that a lot of republicans have (ironic ) is not as prevalent here, Often the RW are just as pro big gov't they just want different things.

he might tolerate a move toward social programs.

they would have to move AWAY from social programs.

also maybe it is the presence of all the other parties(remember if Labour aren't left enough Vote Greens, if Liberals Aren't Right enough vote Christian Democrats), but neither of our major parties talk about it like it is all Left and Right. they talk about their ideas/proposals and although they have a political slant they are not as rigid as the USA. Mind You BOTH sides mainly go for the centre as that is what wins here (compulsory voting, You will not get in by convincing the minority that exist at the Ends of the political spectrum you need the average family vote to win)

Example: Liberal Party here (RW) attempted to get a huge paid maternity leave scheme through which would have been gov't funded.
So which side of Politics in the USA would tried to get a Gov't funded maternity scheme through?

It's the categorical assumptions and beliefs of the party. A Democrat does not believe in capitalist individualism, and a Republican does not believe in social democracy...again, we are not talking about labels. A Tory would never abandon capitalist individualism, even though he might tolerate a move toward social programs.

and that is just like the misrepresentation of Muslims.
VERY few people are actually evil (sure Republican Politicians and Lobbyists are probably up there) most people THINK they are doing the right thing.
SO don't you believe in capitalist individualism AND social democracy? Now I'm confused cause I think vast majority Believe in both just to varying degrees. I think the BIG thing that makes it all just a side show is LOBBYISTS Either side still passes (or doesn't) laws in line with the will of the biggest lobbyist groups. what Politically it is hard for Obama to Support some Lobbyists angle well he can at least offer then 'inaction' for a price, and can pass things the Lefter side of the Lobby groups want. once he is out the RW will to the inverse but still leave alone anything that has Been PAID for....

Democracy Rather like Pro wrestling

veya wrote:See I question that... No Liberal party member would suggest we make our Health system 'capitalist' as Obamacare. At the core there is still a difference the Whole 'all gov't is bad unless suppressing minorities' that a lot of republicans have (ironic Suspect ) is not as prevalent here, Often the RW are just as pro big gov't they just want different things.

Yes, it was a bad move.  The one knock on Obama is that he caves in too much...inexperience.  He could have gone for a single-payer system (single payer = government), but Harry Reid, the leader in the Senate said he would never get it.  So he caved in and went for the Republican plan...comprising private plans, but huge restrictions on prices...kinda like Nixon and price controls on fuel, remember?

But I kind of like it.  It moves us into healthcare gradually, and while we linger we can leisurely kick the ass of the pharmas and medical companies by taking away pricing from them.

Heretofore, the way the Pharms did it was not through research (most research is done in university labs), but by swooping in and buying up some microbiology professor's discovery patent, and once in his position, crying about how they have to struggle to put food on the table while they slaved to develop this drug.  (Lol...Kinda like the way the NY Yankees take championships.)  Indeed, the full name of the law is: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, shortened to the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Wiki wrote:The ACA [Obamacare] was enacted with the goals of increasing the quality and affordability of health insurance, lowering the uninsured rate by expanding public and private insurance coverage, and reducing the costs of healthcare for individuals and the government. It introduced a number of mechanisms—including mandates, subsidies, and insurance exchanges—meant to increase coverage and affordability. The law also requires insurance companies to cover all applicants within new minimum standards and offer the same rates regardless of pre-existing conditions or sex. Additional reforms aimed to reduce costs and improve healthcare outcomes by shifting the system towards quality over quantity through increased competition, regulation, and incentives to streamline the delivery of healthcare. In 2011 the Congressional Budget Office projected that the ACA would lower both future deficits and Medicare spending.

The idea Senator Reid gave Obama was that it was this or nothing.  I think that Obama had more muscle than he thought, but we'll get the single payer law someday soon. In the meantime, the government has put the industry in such a strangle hold, it is essentially the same thing.

Original Quill wrote:

veya wrote:See I question that... No Liberal party member would suggest we make our Health system 'capitalist' as Obamacare. At the core there is still a difference the Whole 'all gov't is bad unless suppressing minorities' that a lot of republicans have (ironic Suspect ) is not as prevalent here, Often the RW are just as pro big gov't they just want different things.

Yes, it was a bad move.  The one knock on Obama is that he caves in too much...inexperience.  He could have gone for a single-payer system (single payer = government), but Harry Reid, the leader in the Senate said he would never get it.  So he caved in and went for the Republican plan...comprising private plans, but huge restrictions on prices...kinda like Nixon and price controls on fuel, remember?

But I kind of like it.  It moves us into healthcare gradually, and while we linger we can leisurely kick the ass of the pharmas and medical companies by taking away pricing from them.

Heretofore, the way the Pharms did it was not through research (most research is done in university labs), but by swooping in and buying up some microbiology professor's discovery patent, and once in his position, crying about how they have to struggle to put food on the table while they slaved to develop this drug.  (Lol...Kinda like the way the NY Yankees take championships.)  Indeed, the full name of the law is: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, shortened to the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Wiki wrote:The ACA [Obamacare] was enacted with the goals of increasing the quality and affordability of health insurance, lowering the uninsured rate by expanding public and private insurance coverage, and reducing the costs of healthcare for individuals and the government. It introduced a number of mechanisms—including mandates, subsidies, and insurance exchanges—meant to increase coverage and affordability. The law also requires insurance companies to cover all applicants within new minimum standards and offer the same rates regardless of pre-existing conditions or sex. Additional reforms aimed to reduce costs and improve healthcare outcomes by shifting the system towards quality over quantity through increased competition, regulation, and incentives to streamline the delivery of healthcare. In 2011 the Congressional Budget Office projected that the ACA would lower both future deficits and Medicare spending.

The idea Senator Reid gave Obama was that it was this or nothing.  I think that Obama had more muscle than he thought, but we'll get the single payer law someday soon.  In the meantime, the government has put the industry in such a strangle hold, it is essentially the same thing.

well Obamacare is definitely a step in the right direction hopefully you can end up with a system like Canada

Also as discussed with Ben
Australia and the UK have 'Universal health care' and is the next step past 'single payer' where the gov't OWNS the hospitals so it single payer, as in it pays staff and equipment directly not as a fee to a private hospital (we have private too)

on health care and a number of social services there is actually fundamental structural differences (which are socialist in origin) which keep all our parties to the left of all your parties... You'd need to buy all the hospitals (or most) and we'd need to sell them all... and nothing so major is likely to pass without immediate drivers for change

Yes, I think we are moving in that direction. Meanwhile, this is what I mean about kicking the ass of the pharmas and medical companies. The reason why healthcare is so high is the pharms and medical companies have had the world in a stranglehold. You guys and the UK may own the hospitals, but you don't own the pharmas. They are the ones who are driving the costs up, even while assuming the 'holier than thou' attitude.

So I like the fact that we are lingering to kick the pharmas' collective ass. Y'all should do the same. If you get these cost infections outta there, you will have truly affordable healthcare.

We already have it's called the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS)
http://www.pbs.gov.au/pbs/home

Gov't tests and pays for Pharma and then resell to Citizens (bulk discount to nation and then further subsidised), we have some of the strictest controls in the world cause.... Surprise ..... when tested Properly half the shit they are trying to sell don't work

And yes, IF the gov't is covering the cost..... all of a sudden Pharmas rorts get curtailed

Interestingly, the Swiss recently had a referendum (because that's what the Swiss do) on whether to move to a Canadian-style system and they voted it down & will stick with their current system, which is like Obamacare without as many concessions to big corporations:

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/29/6864201/single-payer-switzerland-failed

Switzerland may also, by the way, become the first country to abolish welfare and just pay each of its citizens for breathing: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-16/inequality-fight-swiss-will-vote-on-minimum-income I think it's a fantastic idea.

I Like the 'citizen wage' idea too
It would work well for all the smaller nations with high public ownership of resources. (don't know about USA though, maybe too big and too many basics are privately owned) Essentially the nations acts like a corporation and all citizens are share holders and pays them dividends.
It would encourage gov't to invest in local industries and entrepreneurs and possibly going the 'china route' of covering half the investment and taking half the dividend (also helps to make sure the corporation has interests of nation in mind)... just expand that so that the dividends then get divided amongst the citizens after cost of running he nation are covered.

We've has portions of citizen wage in this country. Alaska is an example.

The oil pipeline brought so much money to the small population of that state, that they didn't know what to do with it all. So they just distributed it. I don't know how it worked out theoretically, but there were several articles written about it.

I believe people have done the math and figured out that a citizen wage would cost the taxpayer less even in the U.S. than the myriad system of benefits, mainly due to eliminating all the bureaucracy required to manage it.

A smart argument has been made that people who were poor but, perhaps, didn't need some of the aspects of welfare (for example, a small farmer with little to no use for food stamps) would be better served by a lump sum they could spend as they saw fit. There have even been a few American conservative leaders who have bought into the idea because of that ...