I am amazed you can walk anything but in a straight line - you are so blinkered.

This country will never move to a insurance-based health care option. You know that and so do I - any party that proposed that would be out of power for a very long time. I am all for those that can afford it going private - takes pressure of the NHS who can use the resource to treat those that can't/wont insure themselves.

Which bits of the NHS are they going to hive off? the bigger discussion is what do we want our NHS to provide - everything to everybody? If you do could I suggest basic tax rate would need to 50-60% - when do you say enough is enough?

Of course Trump is going to say it all or nothing - he said the Mexican's were going to pay for a wall to keep their citizens in!! There is a good chance he will not be in power in a year's time. The fact you believe it suggests you would struggle to swim!!

Yesterday's Corbyn tweet was the cost of the US trade deal is now an estimated £45bn in extra costs of drugs. Diane Abbott must be doing the calculations Let's be generous NHS funding is approx. £120bn of which drugs represent approx 15% so £18bn so that is going to rise to £63bn - really!!

No.
If the UK increased spend up to OECD or EU averages as % of GDP it would make a substantial difference. And I believe most UK taxpayers would be satisfied with that choice.

But incidentally why are you so comfortable with the very socialist notion of the NHS? Surely socialism is socialism is socialism, and isn't acceptable anywhere, based on your rhetoric in other posts?

It’s a interesting question. On a simple level, I think things we need should be provided by the state and things we want should be provided by the commercial sector.

But even where the distinction is clear (e.g. staple foods), i wouldn’t always advocate change. And there are obviously grey lots of areas between want and need.

I think the greatest donators to the well being of the general public have been business people made good e.g. Gates, that is what Maslow suggests will happen. Do I think if we had insurance the abuse of the NHS would reduce it certainly would. However we are where we are and as democrat I accept the greater view - whilst ever people think the NHS is free they will treat it as such and if we reduced the abuse the money would go much further - how many people who go to A&E actually need to be there. The vulnerable in society need protecting and need access to a good standard of health care - is it acceptable that those who don't provide for themselves should have the same level of access as those that do without to provide for themselves?

The population have already been asked to put an extra 3% into pension because the previous version couldn't cope and this will rise to 5% so where do you think the additional monies are going to come from - I forgot you are a Socialist and the state knows best and we should be left with what Jeremy deems acceptable.

Remind me who instigated PFIs?

McDonald was put on the spot about this by Marr this morning - he had no reply to the deals done by the US in Canada and Australia where Health care provision was excluded. All he had was we can't trust Trump its the same on workers rights - we cant trust the Tories - no evidence whatsoever just tired all finger pointing.

What "abuse" are you talking about? People going to the doctor because they are worried about something but knowing it won't cost them anything is massively more cost effective than people not going to the doctor because they are worried about the cost and thus delaying diagnosis and treatment until it's too late. That's healthcare 101.

Only a hard-core right winger would classify this as "abuse".

Quote: Sal Paradise " Do I think if we had insurance the abuse of the NHS would reduce it certainly would. However we are where we are and as democrat I accept the greater view - whilst ever people think the NHS is free they will treat it as such and if we reduced the abuse the money would go much further - how many people who go to A&E actually need to be there.'" How do you explain this? The US has an insurance based healthcare system, we don’t. The US spends double on healthcare compared to what we spend. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... k-42950587

Quote: Sal Paradise " Do I think if we had insurance the abuse of the NHS would reduce it certainly would. However we are where we are and as democrat I accept the greater view - whilst ever people think the NHS is free they will treat it as such and if we reduced the abuse the money would go much further - how many people who go to A&E actually need to be there.'" How do you explain this? The US has an insurance based healthcare system, we don’t. The US spends double on healthcare compared to what we spend. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... k-42950587

BTW as already explained this simplistic labelling of people as "socialists" who don't agree with pure free markets is tiresome. Almost everyone, me included, is discussing quite how to balance our mixed economy. I'm similar to Mild Rover in what sectors the government should involve itself in but the biggest problem i have is the state of the private sector. In far too many areas, from the market for labour to the supermarkets to Amazon we see examples of market failure. The habit of some in using the term "free market" as a sort of euphemism for the private sector is troubling because a properly free market is free in both supply and demand. An oligopoly and a monopoly are often just failed markets who eventually short change their customers and consumers and we see examples all around the UK.

One of my clients used to be a tomato supplier on a pretty industrial scale. Tesco offered him prices which would have seen him make a loss on supplying them. It was a totally inequitable arrangement and for other suppliers who only had one big customer there were few options. Fortunately he also had a contract with Sainsburys which meant he could reject Tesco but it was a revealing insight into abuse of a dominant position to screw suppliers.

I believe in GENUINE free markets in almost all sectors other than those where it makes no sense: health, education, defence, police, domestic transport, fixed supply utilities. But, to use a phrase, they should be properly regulated free markets where abusive actions by companies or individuals who have gamed the system are met with suitably powerful anti trust regulators.

Quote: Sal Paradise "Remind me who instigated PFIs?'" The Conservative Government of John Major in 1992. Use of PFIs became more widespread under the (New) Labour Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. After the financial crisis of 2007, private finance was harder to obtain, so the government started lending public money to private companies because... no that’s pretty much unjustifiable, innit? Biggest stain on their domestic legacy, imo. Philip Hammond pulled the plug after Carillion went pop, and I hope it stays pulled. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... e-projects Yay for Philip Hammond!

Quote: Sal Paradise "Remind me who instigated PFIs?'" The Conservative Government of John Major in 1992. Use of PFIs became more widespread under the (New) Labour Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. After the financial crisis of 2007, private finance was harder to obtain, so the government started lending public money to private companies because... no that’s pretty much unjustifiable, innit? Biggest stain on their domestic legacy, imo. Philip Hammond pulled the plug after Carillion went pop, and I hope it stays pulled. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... e-projects Yay for Philip Hammond!

[iTwo faced.[/i

How old is the boy trapped in that tangerine skin?