Discussion
Tuna said:
Gloria Slap said:
Davos123 said:
- they don't tend to benefit from freedom of movement.
Keep em coming!
He reads what he wants to see that fits with his narrative
Gloria Slap said:
Tuna said:
For someone so concerned with the intelligence of others, you really struggle with comprehension sometimes.
Do explain how the problems of the less well off are due to FOM, if you believe that to be the case.Gloria Slap said:
So because “more come here than leave here” the fear is rational? Why, what is there to be afraid of if that happens?
It is rational in the sense of let us say there are around 100,000 quality employment opportunities each year, if 350,000 people are moving to the country net each year, then that clearly increases the competition for those roles. I think people also feel that Britain is crowded, factually that IS in accurate, the population is broadly stable, but it doesn’t feel that way, it feels busier. Lack of road space, hospital beds, school places etc - migration (net migration) is a factor.
What is the correct population size ? I have no idea but for a number of years the left shouted “racist” whenever this debate was opened, that was foolish and has consequences (Farage)
I know that this perception is not helpful https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Andrew_Neather
Shooting. Tuna. Barrel.
LOL. Indeed you are not. There are people who agree with you. One is the blog above to which I'll come back in a second. Here is another one;
[url]https://www.infowars.com/single-payer-nhs-recommends-amputation-instead-of-treatment-for-girls-leg/[url]
Back to your blog that agrees with you. Blog by self-described 'free market approach' promoters critical of a study where NHS is shown as being very efficient? Shocking,
The 'think tank' where director general says this about plain packaging on cigarettes;
There are no words to describe my surprise at you picking tobacco lobby group to confirm your opinion on anything related to health.
I'm still laughing at getting an opinion published by lying tobacco lobby group on health and how it should be measured. Not stupid at all. Next time I want to read an unbiased opinion on gun crime, I'll look for a press release by NRA.
You have to love NP&E.
As before; you don't have a clue, as demonstrated, about things that you post about.
Anyhow, enough diversion from the incompetence of May and Co. I've spoken to few people in the NHS, (disclosure; all medical, not managerial); and the rumours are that significant part of the promised £20Bn is not extra funding but money from 'efficiency savings'.
Tuna said:
jjlynn27 said:
"I know better about the efficiency of NHS than Commonwealth fund cause I was visiting people in hospital!"
Just to help you out, I'm not the only one critical of the Commonwealth Fund report: https://iea.org.uk/blog/the-envy-of-the-world-a-cl...[url]https://www.infowars.com/single-payer-nhs-recommends-amputation-instead-of-treatment-for-girls-leg/[url]
Back to your blog that agrees with you. Blog by self-described 'free market approach' promoters critical of a study where NHS is shown as being very efficient? Shocking,
The 'think tank' where director general says this about plain packaging on cigarettes;
ML said:
“Completely removing the branding of tobacco products raises serious issues of free expression. It limits – indeed practically extinguishes – consumer information. The war on tobacco should be declared over. These sorts of proposals come across as a petty vendetta against those who choose to smoke, not as an evidence-based attempt to improve health"
Freedom of expression is under attack! It's pure coincidence that they were receiving, undisclosed, donations from the tobacco industry; BAT, PMI and JTI. There are no words to describe my surprise at you picking tobacco lobby group to confirm your opinion on anything related to health.
Tuna said:
You might also want to check the stated goals of the Commonwealth Fund, which is to promote universal healthcare access to the US. In that context, a report that sings the high praises of the NHS is not quite so surprising.
In that context? There are eleven countries in that report. Most of them have universal access. If your theory is correct, they'd praise all systems with universal healthcare, and they are not. So wrong on that point as well. Tuna said:
Here's a nice article for you to read: https://www.weeklystandard.com/david-gratzer-and-m...
Do you even look at who the authors are or just type things in google and hope for the best? What Gratzer and Co, didn't tell you, when they use elective (note the elective part) operations to boost the case for American insurance approach, is that healthcare bills are the most common reason for people going bankrupt. Article said:
Typical of the Commonwealth Fund is a recent study claiming that the U.S. health care system ranks last when compared with seven industrialized countries. It’s just the latest in a string of policy studies from organizations that want to see a European-style, government-run health care system brought to these shores. Democratic politicians and their allies then use those studies to bolster the case for dramatic reforms.
Tuna said:
But you seem to find it hard to get your head around the idea that reading a report written in the US about a healthcare system that you don't appear to have any personal experience of does not make you an expert on the matter. The fact that you appear blissfully unaware of the background of that report only reinforces the idea that you're either trolling or ignorant.
Once again, it wasn't UK vs the USA, it's eleven (11) countries. And for the Health outcomes that you very demonstrably don't understand at all, USA was the only country behind the UK. After spending twice as much on care. I'm still laughing at getting an opinion published by lying tobacco lobby group on health and how it should be measured. Not stupid at all. Next time I want to read an unbiased opinion on gun crime, I'll look for a press release by NRA.
You have to love NP&E.
As before; you don't have a clue, as demonstrated, about things that you post about.
Anyhow, enough diversion from the incompetence of May and Co. I've spoken to few people in the NHS, (disclosure; all medical, not managerial); and the rumours are that significant part of the promised £20Bn is not extra funding but money from 'efficiency savings'.
Gloria Slap said:
So just what was your point?
The discussion was about FOM being a good thing, and then you moaned about the plight of poor people.
Yes, just what is your point? Spit it out why don’t you!
Nah, I'm alright. I've been courteous and polite in my responses but if you're not going to respond in kind I shan't bother to engage with you.The discussion was about FOM being a good thing, and then you moaned about the plight of poor people.
Yes, just what is your point? Spit it out why don’t you!
jjlynn27 said:
Shooting. Tuna. Barrel.
Keep trying. You're a lousy shot. 
jjlynn27 said:
Tuna said:
But you seem to find it hard to get your head around the idea that reading a report written in the US about a healthcare system that you don't appear to have any personal experience of does not make you an expert on the matter. The fact that you appear blissfully unaware of the background of that report only reinforces the idea that you're either trolling or ignorant.
Once again, it wasn't UK vs the USA, it's eleven (11) countries. And for the Health outcomes that you very demonstrably don't understand at all, USA was the only country behind the UK. After spending twice as much on care. Good for you that your maths (last but one out of 11 countries for medical outcomes) makes you believe the NHS is magically efficient. Come here next time you're ill. Let me know when that is and I'll send you a get well card. Maybe they'll fix those delusions.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/06/nh...
Lord Carter said:
A review of NHS spending has discovered a damning catalogue of waste, including a hospital spending £10,000 a month by giving staff too many holidays, and managers routinely spending £1.50 a time on soluble tablets for liver failure when non-soluble versions could be bought for 2p each.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/28/nhs-guilty-ridiculous-waste-resources-could-improve-care-without/Telegraph said:
The NHS is guilty of a “ridiculous waste of resources” - and could improve care without spending a penny more, its most senior doctor says.
Michael Portillo said:
We have been talking about the inefficiency... and need for reform in the NHS for decades.. None of us believes that after spending an extra £20 billion on the NHS that we won't still have a winter crisis.
Feel free to shoot them any time you want, JJ.Davos123 said:
Well I didn't say that at all, but your inability to empathise with their situation is the problem here. You don't have to agree with their conclusion but an inability to recognise their situation and implement positive policies to address them is what's led to this problem in the first place.
Its a fallacy. There is no limit on the number of jobs. You don’t complain if someone from another county moves to your local area (or do you?). But somehow some assert that FOM is a problem for the poor - the stats say otherwise and it isn’t.
Gloria Slap said:
Its a fallacy. There is no limit on the number of jobs.
You don’t complain if someone from another county moves to your local area (or do you?). But somehow some assert that FOM is a problem for the poor - the stats say otherwise and it isn’t.
A credible link to these statistics would be most helpful...You don’t complain if someone from another county moves to your local area (or do you?). But somehow some assert that FOM is a problem for the poor - the stats say otherwise and it isn’t.
sidicks said:
Gloria Slap said:
Its a fallacy. There is no limit on the number of jobs.
You don’t complain if someone from another county moves to your local area (or do you?). But somehow some assert that FOM is a problem for the poor - the stats say otherwise and it isn’t.
A credible link to these statistics would be most helpful...You don’t complain if someone from another county moves to your local area (or do you?). But somehow some assert that FOM is a problem for the poor - the stats say otherwise and it isn’t.
is delicious.
crankedup said:
Once again the issue of refugees fleeing into Europe is heading the news topics. Several years since refugee boats took to water and yet the EU have still been unable to find solutions to this ‘problem’, as seen by Italy and Germany in particular. Greece is full. When the EU is put to its first test it ends in failure. Nothing to do with FOM.
It would be easier if some leavers read and understood the numerous posts irregular immigration. Irregular immigration is not an EU competency and they cannot do anything about it. The Dublin convention is unenforceable because it is only subject to domestic law.Mrr T said:
It would be easier if some leavers read and understood the numerous posts irregular immigration. Irregular immigration is not an EU competency and they cannot do anything about it. The Dublin convention is unenforceable because it is only subject to domestic law.
Hmmmmmmhttps://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/06...
Gloria Slap said:
crankedup said:
Once again the issue of refugees fleeing into Europe is heading the news topics. Several years since refugee boats took to water and yet the EU have still been unable to find solutions to this ‘problem’, as seen by Italy and Germany in particular. Greece is full. When the EU is put to its first test it ends in failure. Nothing to do with FOM.
It is correct that EU FOM is nothing to do with the problems of fleeing refugees - a genuine problem that being in or out of the EU won’t change.Only a bigoted racist would create a massive “breaking point” poster to suggest otherwise!
Vanden Saab said:
Mrr T said:
It would be easier if some leavers read and understood the numerous posts irregular immigration. Irregular immigration is not an EU competency and they cannot do anything about it. The Dublin convention is unenforceable because it is only subject to domestic law.
Hmmmmmmhttps://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/06...
The rights of the individual under UNCR will override any Schengen provisions. This mean that unless refugees agree to move they could not be forced to do so under Schengen. The same applies to the Dublin Convention.
Hummmmmmmmmmmmm x 2
Mrr T said:
Vanden Saab said:
Mrr T said:
It would be easier if some leavers read and understood the numerous posts irregular immigration. Irregular immigration is not an EU competency and they cannot do anything about it. The Dublin convention is unenforceable because it is only subject to domestic law.
Hmmmmmmhttps://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/06...
The rights of the individual under UNCR will override any Schengen provisions. This mean that unless refugees agree to move they could not be forced to do so under Schengen. The same applies to the Dublin Convention.
Hummmmmmmmmmmmm x 2
Hmmmmmm x3
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff