Boris Johnson- Prime Minister

[NoNeed]

frisbee said:

Gargamel said:

If anyone think the NHS as it is now is sustainable, they are a barking lunatic.

Sooner or later something has to change.

The only thing that'll change if you get America involved with the NHS is it costing you twice as much.

It has doubled in cost over the last 10-15 years and had doubled over the previous same period, America was not involved and it cannot keep doing that, it isn't sustainable

[anonymous-user]

frisbee said:

The only thing that'll change if you get America involved with the NHS is it costing you twice as much.

Why would introducing more competition into the NHS procurement process increase costs?

That usually drives down cost and increases the speed of new technology introduction.

If the current offering is better, no loss is made having other options available.

So whats the problem here?

[sas62]

La Liga said:

sas62 said:

Odd, presentation is far from my issue - not sure where I implied that.

It's purely content.

If it was content, you'd have actually spoken about the content.

Err I did - I literally only spoke about his material. From nowhere you stated I was referring to presentation. Material means content.

La Liga said:

sas62 said:

Maybe ask yourself what is the purpose of this content, Is it to educate/inform? Or is it to make people laugh?.Maybe don't confuse one with the other.

Does it have to be an 'or'? Are education / informing and making people laugh mutually exclusive matters?

Having watched a fair bit of his work, I'd say it's both. Often serious subjects making serious points wrapped up in comedy.

sas62 said:

Oh and I don't know him. I hadn't realised that in order to comment on someone you needed to know them personally. How was Boris the last time you met him?

You don't and nor did I suggest you do.

You stated that, "(Oliver) has no more political insight than my mate down the pub."

You're not in a position to state that because you don't know Oliver to know the limitations / scope of his political insight. His insight may be below, 'no more' or greater than your mate's.

I am not doing anything like that with Boris so don't require extensive personal knowledge to make a judgement. For example, the prawn cocktail crisps matter.

Exactly. It was you who introduced him to this thread not me. To clarify - a comedian who live's and works in New York commenting on UK politics, who neither of us knows, whose knowledge you admit may be below that of my mate down the pub.

I admit I may not know a lot about John Oliver but I do know my mate down the pub so I'm well acquainted with 50% of the comparison. Unless you live near me it's unlikely you can say the same.

[unsprung]

Vaud said:

Did he mean a federal solution allowing UK companies to sell to ALL US states - or lowering the barriers to allow UK insurers to set up and sell within the US? (I hadn't seen the article)

Hi there. Below is what Johnson said.

He comes off as a sort of overly-confident public school sort who has got on more by association than by getting things done. It's embarrassing.

This is not about "Leaders set strategy, but can't be mired in detail." It's about the utter raison d'etre of the country that he's talking about.

America is not a centralised or lilliputian nation. The extensive rights and responsibilities of each state have been enshrined in Constitutional law for more than two centuries.

The citizens of Arizona and Massachusetts, say, have different expectations and different regional cultures and climates. Therefore, those states create distinct definitions for what insurance can and cannot do. And for what sums or percentages. And with what rights, responsibilities, and tort law.


“If you want to sell insurance in the UK you only need to speak to two regulators. If you want to sell insurance in the US you have to speak to 50 regulators."

https://www.ft.com/content/571efd82-c680-11e9-a1f4...

"If you want to sell insurance in the U.S. you have to speak to 50 regulators. The same point can be made about architects and many other professions."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/britains-l...

[Escort3500]

[markcoznottz]

NoNeed said:

frisbee said:

Gargamel said:

If anyone think the NHS as it is now is sustainable, they are a barking lunatic.

Sooner or later something has to change.

The only thing that'll change if you get America involved with the NHS is it costing you twice as much.

It has doubled in cost over the last 10-15 years and had doubled over the previous same period, America was not involved and it cannot keep doing that, it isn't sustainable

£10 per gp visit. People will just have to have one less pack of cigs, or cut back on whatever else, it might focus thier attention on just how good value it is. Considering most uk residents pay less tax than they take, it's amazing value.

[Otis Criblecoblis]

Ructions said:

Otis Criblecoblis said:

Ructions said:

Bleach my chicken and privatise the NHS please Donald.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/116565988226941...

There's no shortage of things you can post and moan about Boris, but that tweet and your post is just doing bottom of the barrel stuff to moan for moanings sake.

Privatising the NHS is bottom of the barrel stuff alright, and it will happen. Boris will see to it, with or without his hot buttered toast.

I heard he's going to incinerate the poor too and sell off their homes to Russian oligarchs . After this he is going to sell the NHS , as you warned us Thatcher was going to do in the 1980s.

You took a tweet to a president and a PM are meeting and talking trade, and one said their others economy is doing great. Wow... lets pile on the PH moan-fest.

[NoNeed]

markcoznottz said:

NoNeed said:

frisbee said:

Gargamel said:

If anyone think the NHS as it is now is sustainable, they are a barking lunatic.

Sooner or later something has to change.

The only thing that'll change if you get America involved with the NHS is it costing you twice as much.

It has doubled in cost over the last 10-15 years and had doubled over the previous same period, America was not involved and it cannot keep doing that, it isn't sustainable

£10 per gp visit. People will just have to have one less pack of cigs, or cut back on whatever else, it might focus thier attention on just how good value it is. Considering most uk residents pay less tax than they take, it's amazing value.

I would imagine the cost of collecting £10 and processing/accounting would be more than it's worth

I think a tax incentive for private care may work better, those that can afford to get out do those that can still have a system, maybe a combination of both.

I would like to see a fixed amount of tax i.e 20% of what the government gets in tax is the NHS budget, if tax take rises so does the budget, if it doesn't it won't

we need a royal commission or something outside of party politics to sort it once and for all

[ORD]

markcoznottz said:

NoNeed said:

frisbee said:

Gargamel said:

If anyone think the NHS as it is now is sustainable, they are a barking lunatic.

Sooner or later something has to change.

The only thing that'll change if you get America involved with the NHS is it costing you twice as much.

It has doubled in cost over the last 10-15 years and had doubled over the previous same period, America was not involved and it cannot keep doing that, it isn't sustainable

£10 per gp visit. People will just have to have one less pack of cigs, or cut back on whatever else, it might focus thier attention on just how good value it is. Considering most uk residents pay less tax than they take, it's amazing value.

Not without massive changes to attitudes to healthcare.

The Daily Mail would implode the first time that somebody died when they would have survived, had they visited the GP but chose not to because of the £10 charge. The party in charge would be annihilated by the press.

[robemcdonald]

rxe said:

Exactly this. Politics has been infested by “management” for a long time. There is no vision, the belief is that if they manage competently, don’t fk up too badly, then they’ll be popular. The last politician with leadership skills and an ability to set out a vision was M. Thatcher, and to a lesser extent T. Blair.

Leadership is about direction setting, not being in the details all the time. You lay out a plan, you make sure that plan is achievable, and then you lead a team to execute it. If you have a habit of creating unachievable plans, then you lose. Leading a team is not just beating them with a stick to do it - it’s explaining, listening, and occasionally plunging into the detail to help them overcome barriers.

I can use a Brexit example. I had dinner with a mate who is a civil servant a while back. He was bemoaning that Brexit would lead to all aeroplanes being grounded due to certification issues. It wasn’t hard to lead him through a scenario where 3 (perfectly achievable) things had to be done and it would be fine, But if your leadership are running around with their hair on fire yelling “we’re doomed”, how are you going to deal with the detail?


At the moment he is leading. This is good. The crunchy bit will come when the people who work for him deliver on the details.

Can I ask? What where the three perfectly achievable things to prevent aircraft being grounded?

I only ask because it might be useful to know soon.

[768]

I'd probably be likely to go more often if they charged a tenner and that meant people didn't think you were just turning up to avoid paying for heating at home or something.

[unsprung]

pgh said:

So Boris shoots for the moon with an opening gambit on selling services to the US. Criticised for asking the ‘impossible’ (although Geiko manage a national insurance business extremely well, that sneaky Mr Buffet). Presumably if he didn’t ask for national access he’d also be being criticised for a lack of ambition.
Surely more honest just to state that whatever he does, you won’t be happy?

Americans invite a challenge with the impossible.

To complain, however about the Constitutional rights and responsibilities of individual states -- rights and responsibilities which have existed for a very long time, and which are the very basis for the nation's existence -- makes Johnson look like the mayor from a village on one of the minor British isles.

Johnson may as well have popped across the Channel and declared, "Oooh, there's lots of different languages over here." His complaint about the US insurance market is just a notch or two above that!

Additionally: PH user wisbech is correct in stating, much earlier above, that GEICO do indeed have at least one distinct company per US state. All the insurance companies do. UK companies are not asked to do anything more than the usual.

The UK is the world's largest exporter of services, after the US. Start acting like it. (this comes from myself and others over here who are generally anglophile and keen on doing more and better between the US and UK)

[anonymous-user]

sas62 said:

Err I did - I literally only spoke about his material. From nowhere you stated I was referring to presentation. Material means content.

You've not spoken about his material.

You've done the classic attack the messenger and not the message.

Presentation refers to your fixation on the comedic aspect, not what he's actually saying.

If there's something specific he speaks about / presents you feel is unjust, or I many have misinterpreted, then feel free to highlight it.

sas62 said:

Exactly. It was you who introduced him to this thread not me. To clarify - a comedian who live's and works in New York commenting on UK politics, who neither of us knows, whose knowledge you admit may be below that of my mate down the pub.

Attacking the messenger once more.

To clarify, you stated that, you stated that, "(Oliver) has no more political insight than my mate down the pub.", when you were in no position to. Although you seem to be half-recognising that below.

sas62 said:

I admit I may not know a lot about John Oliver but I do know my mate down the pub so I'm well acquainted with 50% of the comparison. Unless you live near me it's unlikely you can say the same.

I wouldn't say the same as I recognise when I'm not in a position to present something as a fact when I have no basis to.

[sas62]

La Liga said:

sas62 said:

Err I did - I literally only spoke about his material. From nowhere you stated I was referring to presentation. Material means content.

You've not spoken about his material.

You've done the classic attack the messenger and not the message.

Presentation refers to your fixation on the comedic aspect, not what he's actually saying.

If there's something specific he speaks about / presents you feel is unjust, or I many have misinterpreted, then feel free to highlight it.

sas62 said:

Exactly. It was you who introduced him to this thread not me. To clarify - a comedian who live's and works in New York commenting on UK politics, who neither of us knows, whose knowledge you admit may be below that of my mate down the pub.

Attacking the messenger once more.

To clarify, you stated that, you stated that, "(Oliver) has no more political insight than my mate down the pub.", when you were in no position to. Although you seem to be half-recognising that below.

sas62 said:

I admit I may not know a lot about John Oliver but I do know my mate down the pub so I'm well acquainted with 50% of the comparison. Unless you live near me it's unlikely you can say the same.

I wouldn't say the same as I recognise when I'm not in a position to present something as a fact when I have no basis to.

Firstly have you heard of a simile? You can use diversionary arguments to focus on whether my simile is factual. Or you could focus on the actual argument.

I'm not taking political instruction from a US based comedian in the same way as I wouldn't take investment advice from my window cleaner.

I certainly wouldn't put a youtube clip of my window cleaner giving said advice, on a finance internet forum claiming that it added to the discussion on ISAs.

You may consider that attacking the messenger, I wouldn't.

(Fact Check - my window cleaner has never offered me financial advice - please don't pull me up on that.)

[anonymous-user]

Escort3500 said:

Is that Johnson after the ageing app?

[ClaphamGT3]

digimeistter said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

I worked with Boris quite closely when he was the mayor of London and to say he is not one to master detail is something of an understatement.

That’s not always a bad thing - someone has to set a broad vision and someone has to sell it on the doorstep but, when it comes to complex negotiations and aligning multiple interests around a desired outcome, mastery of detail is all. This is why Thatcher, Major and Blair (& the ministerial team’s they built around them) were so successful. This is also why I don’t have high hopes for a good outcome from this Govt

Interesting?

In what capacity did you work with Boris?

We advised on a range of transport, housing & Olympic related matters, as we continue to do with the current mayor.

[frisbee]

jsf said:

frisbee said:

The only thing that'll change if you get America involved with the NHS is it costing you twice as much.

Why would introducing more competition into the NHS procurement process increase costs?

That usually drives down cost and increases the speed of new technology introduction.

If the current offering is better, no loss is made having other options available.

So whats the problem here?

The problem is that average healthcare costs in America are twice what they are in the UK.

Competition is next to non-existent and companies make huge profits.

Get the French involved if you want to improve the NHS, oh wait...

[anonymous-user]

frisbee said:

jsf said:

frisbee said:

The only thing that'll change if you get America involved with the NHS is it costing you twice as much.

Why would introducing more competition into the NHS procurement process increase costs?

That usually drives down cost and increases the speed of new technology introduction.

If the current offering is better, no loss is made having other options available.

So whats the problem here?

The problem is that average healthcare costs in America are twice what they are in the UK.

Competition is next to non-existent and companies make huge profits.

Get the French involved if you want to improve the NHS, oh wait...

That doesn't address my questions.

There is already some sharing of resource in the NHS/Private sector. For example my sister was a senior nurse at Christies in Manchester, a world renowned cancer research hospital. Although she worked for the NHS, she ran a ward catering for private patients. The surgeons/consultants did both NHS and Private work, the NHS charged out their resource. This provided more funds for NHS patient care and more funds for cutting edge research.

Now if the USA can provide a higher quality, yet lower cost resource to the NHS, what's the problem? So long as the care is free at the point of supply, the patient wont care.

[ClaphamGT3]

jsf said:

frisbee said:

jsf said:

frisbee said:

The only thing that'll change if you get America involved with the NHS is it costing you twice as much.

Why would introducing more competition into the NHS procurement process increase costs?

That usually drives down cost and increases the speed of new technology introduction.

If the current offering is better, no loss is made having other options available.

So whats the problem here?

The problem is that average healthcare costs in America are twice what they are in the UK.

Competition is next to non-existent and companies make huge profits.

Get the French involved if you want to improve the NHS, oh wait...

That doesn't address my questions.

There is already some sharing of resource in the NHS/Private sector. For example my sister was a senior nurse at Christies in Manchester, a world renowned cancer research hospital. Although she worked for the NHS, she ran a ward catering for private patients. The surgeons/consultants did both NHS and Private work, the NHS charged out their resource. This provided more funds for NHS patient care and more funds for cutting edge research.

Now if the USA can provide a higher quality, yet lower cost resource to the NHS, what's the problem? So long as the care is free at the point of supply, the patient wont care.

The US interest in the NHS would not be about altruistic models of care and improved clinical outcomes, it would be about solus deals for US pharma and clinical equipment companies to supply the NHS.

The niaivity of some posters here is astonishing.....

[anonymous-user]

ClaphamGT3 said:

The US interest in the NHS would not be about altruistic models of care and improved clinical outcomes, it would be about solus deals for US pharma and clinical equipment companies to supply the NHS.

The niaivity of some posters here is astonishing.....

And the problem with USA companies bidding for equipment and pharma supply contracts is what?