- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,240
Last edited:
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] The Labour Government
- Thread starter Super Steve Earle
- Start date
highflyer
Well-known member
- Jan 21, 2016
- 2,495
NHS costs are around average for health systems in comparable countries. And considerably less costly than US health care.
BN41Albion
Well-known member
- Oct 1, 2017
- 6,658
Have we signed a left back yet? If not, Starmer OUT
maltaseagull
Well-known member
NHS services are below average in comparable countries and considerably worse than US (if you have enough insurance cover)
Governments for decades have increased budgets with little improvement in basic services.
Fignon's Ponytail
Well-known member
Day 1 and I’ve had a bottle of champagne and a full English. Socialism is everything I anticipated so far.
RandyWanger
Je suis rôti de boeuf
Woke up with sore legs (after a super intense HIIT session) a headache (probably dehydration) and to torrential rain outside, very apocalyptic looking out there.
Getting ready for the 'you'll have nothing and be happy' life as a service to be inflicted on us by Tony and the WEF.
Getting ready for the 'you'll have nothing and be happy' life as a service to be inflicted on us by Tony and the WEF.
highflyer
Well-known member
- Jan 21, 2016
- 2,495
Nope. US gets worse outcomes for a health system that costs almost 50% as much as in UK. US health outcomes are comparable with Cuba, which has a health system costing just a fraction. There are plenty of very obvious reasons why this is the case. Not least that a system driven by profit is likely to focus on cure rather than prevention, which is highly inefficient. And the process of profit extraction increases costs without improving services.
Almost two nations in one. Rich Americans and those with decent medical insurance would comprise a disproportionally large chunk of the huge aggregate cost. A friend’s daughter fought for her life over three months with pneumonia in a shiny huge New Jersey hospital last year, she made it. The bill all in $670,000.
Whilst others have basic cover and 30m have no cover at all. Hidden within the headline grabbing high healthcare spend per capita.
Sorrel
Well-known member
I hope they do well and aren't ideologically driven. As they make decision all governments have to start annoying people, so they are bound to lose some kudos.
The pre-election cull of the more left-wing previous MPs was a clever idea and should prevent some of the left-wing agitation on the backbenches. If they can govern in a clear way, without internal bickering and without giving in to pressure groups, then they should retain reasonable popularity.
Blair did well for the first term, but 9/11 and the American response - and then his support of them - undid him in the second. If this government can avoid events it should be ok. But sooner or later unpopular decisions will be required...
The pre-election cull of the more left-wing previous MPs was a clever idea and should prevent some of the left-wing agitation on the backbenches. If they can govern in a clear way, without internal bickering and without giving in to pressure groups, then they should retain reasonable popularity.
Blair did well for the first term, but 9/11 and the American response - and then his support of them - undid him in the second. If this government can avoid events it should be ok. But sooner or later unpopular decisions will be required...
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
If you have enough insurance is doing some heavy lifting there.
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
It'll be interesting to see how the new Government deals with immigration.
Legal migration is the easiest to deal with as you can simply reduce the amount that are allowed in, and make the qualification criteria stricter. Illegal immigration into the UK is the thornier problem, despite it only being a relatively small proportion of the problem, and probably needs to start with a conversation with the French. Cooperation on stopping the gangs and processing asylum claims is definitely the way to go.
On a different topic, I'm also interested in seeing whether they advance the voting at 16 idea this term, would they then also consider lowering the age you can drink at, serve on the front line, smoke, etc? As surely if a 16 year old is responsible enough to vote, they are responsible enough to be able to do all those other things too? That will be an interesting debate.
Last edited:
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Is there any age responsible enough to smoke? When I was a teenager it was actively encouraged but we know better now. Thank goodness I managed to pack it in, 33 years ago.
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
Personally, I don't think so, and actually think the previous administration's plan to phase it out was a positive move.
The debate around when people are able to properly be responsible is an interesting one though. Personally, I don't think it is 16.
His arse.
vegster
Sanity Clause
- May 5, 2008
- 28,182
My dad was a politician....so obviously I've never met my father.
