Being pro Labour and being pro-Brexit are not incompatible - as Corbyn found out in many of his one-time northern constituencies!
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
The Political Response
- Thread starter Bozza
- Start date
Being pro Labour and being pro-Brexit are not incompatible - as Corbyn found out in many of his one-time northern constituencies!
Weststander
Well-known member
Operation Duplicitous Chameleon, led to Labour’s worst defeat since 1935.
I'm quite sure that if Jezza and his band of merry men had got in and were handling this that is the ONLY counter they would have showed.
That’s easy to answer. £1.5 billion every three days if it’s to be brought up to the standard of Germany’s which is seen as one of the best.
“Germany has long had the most restriction-free and consumer-oriented healthcare system in Europe. Patients are allowed to seek almost any type of care they wish whenever they want it. The governmental health system in Germany is currently keeping a record reserve of more than €18 billion which makes it one of the healthiest healthcare systems in the world.”
Sorrel
Well-known member
I like the German health system, but I can't imagine health insurance like that being accepted in the UK.
Do you mean the levels of funding? Or the way it’s funded? Or both?
Sorrel
Well-known member
I was thinking of the way it's funded, rather than the amount. Imagine saying to the British public that they need to pay health insurance rather than funding it out of general taxation.
I guess you could argue that National Insurance is designed for this - it even includes the employer contribution - but I can't see mandatory health insurance as a vote winner.
I understand. I feel the term health insurance is a bit misleading imho. Health is paid for by taking a percentage from your salary, that’s no different to a tax. The way this money is then distributed and then administered is via heavily regulated not-4-profit companies acting like insurance companies. But the government could, if it wanted to, administer the money a different way. To me, the important bit, and the main difference between the U.K. and Germany, is the amount collected.
As a caveat, you can opt out and take private health insurance if you earn a certain amount. The threshold is when private is cheaper than you and your employer paying a combined 14% of your salary.
I understand. I feel the term health insurance is a bit misleading imho. Health is paid for by taking a percentage from your salary, that’s no different to a tax. The way this money is then administered is via heavily regulated not-4-profit companies acting like insurance companies. But the government could, if it wanted to, administer the money a different way. To me, the important bit, and the main difference between the U.K. and Germany, is the amount collected.
As a caveat, you can opt out and take private health insurance if you earn a certain amount. The threshold is when private is cheaper than you and your employer paying a combined 14% of your salary.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,014
the ways its delivered: Germany (and others) healthcare is too much like a market, cant have consumer oriented system here, numerous organisations involved. we'll keep our monolithic centrally controlled system thank you.
That’s fine. Maybe just adopt the same levels of funding then?
Sorrel
Well-known member
I wonder - without knowing the answer - if the fact the are more than one company administering the health insurance in Germany makes, by the competitive element, the companies more efficient?
My problem with just giving more money to the NHS is that as it is a single entity it may not be very efficient with what it gets. And that, even if we adopted German levels of funding, the results would not be the same.
My problem with just giving more money to the NHS is that as it is a single entity it may not be very efficient with what it gets. And that, even if we adopted German levels of funding, the results would not be the same.
I don’t know the answer to your first paragraph. It’s a good question though, and I’ll try and find out. As I understand it, there are 130-ish companies providing health insurance and the premiums they charge, and the minimum service they provide (which is actually very high), and the fact they can’t refuse anyone or change premiums based on health, is mandated by law. They do vie for business though, so offering above the minimum makes them more attractive. Given the premiums are fixed and min service mandated they will need to fund the extra by efficiencies....I guess. I believe the 130 are not-4-profit but that’s not to say bosses won’t get bonuses for extra business and/or being more efficient; my point is there is most likely incentives and competition in the mix.
Agree with your second point. Extra funding will certainly be a step in the right direction but might not yield a similar service.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
You could always go with the US model, which costs twice as much, doesn't cover c20% of the population, and (although not the sole cause) leads to lower life expectancy.
Mental Lental
Well-known member
Spending on the NHS under Cameron and May was at it's lowest level since the NHS' inception. Boris has promised to spend more but it still won't be anywhere as much as it was under New Labour.....
Source:
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-50290033
With Boris out of action for the foreseeable future, it’s interesting to see the changes in language in the daily press conferences as well as the obvious private briefing to journos in the background.
Boris was brilliant at deflecting the responsibility of his decisions onto the Vallance, Whitty and their teams but the message from the CMO & colleagues yesterday was 100% pinning it all on Boris. Instead of the Cummings inspired ‘right decisions at the right times’, it’s all about following Boris’ plans.
Gove has clearly got his Boris-back stabbing blade out again and his not afraid to use it on someone in ICU. There is no surprise that Journos have been briefed that Gove wanted the lockdown ASAP and that Boris overruled him and Hancock because of his libertarian values. Popularism and lockdowns don’t mix one bit, Boris’ brand of leadership depends on him being able to tell people what they want to hear, not what they need to hear in order to save more lives.
The irony is of course, that by laying in ICU making an example of himself, Boris is now saving lives putting and right some of the horrific mistakes of judgement he made in January, February & March. I hope he recovers fully but perhaps it’ll be best for everyone if he reappears after this catastrophe (where he played the part of catalyst) has ended.
Boris was brilliant at deflecting the responsibility of his decisions onto the Vallance, Whitty and their teams but the message from the CMO & colleagues yesterday was 100% pinning it all on Boris. Instead of the Cummings inspired ‘right decisions at the right times’, it’s all about following Boris’ plans.
Gove has clearly got his Boris-back stabbing blade out again and his not afraid to use it on someone in ICU. There is no surprise that Journos have been briefed that Gove wanted the lockdown ASAP and that Boris overruled him and Hancock because of his libertarian values. Popularism and lockdowns don’t mix one bit, Boris’ brand of leadership depends on him being able to tell people what they want to hear, not what they need to hear in order to save more lives.
The irony is of course, that by laying in ICU making an example of himself, Boris is now saving lives putting and right some of the horrific mistakes of judgement he made in January, February & March. I hope he recovers fully but perhaps it’ll be best for everyone if he reappears after this catastrophe (where he played the part of catalyst) has ended.