Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It looks like trump's pick, Orban, may be ousted by the Tiza party. Could lead to closer ties with Ukraine and the EU on Ukraine and Russian sanctions ?" Its Tisza. I think Tiza was a fizzy drink. They are also opposed to helping Ukraine. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It looks like trump's pick, Orban, may be ousted by the Tiza party. Could lead to closer ties with Ukraine and the EU on Ukraine and Russian sanctions ? Its Tisza. I think Tiza was a fizzy drink. They are also opposed to helping Ukraine." Not quite… they are not opposed to blocking or vetoing help for Ukraine which is what Orban was doing……. This is now going to help both NATO and the EU from help militarily and the big financial aid package to help This is a win for Europe | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Orban concedes.. Early predictions It'll be a large majority for Magyars party.. " There are many upsides to this outcome. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It looks like trump's pick, Orban, may be ousted by the Tiza party. Could lead to closer ties with Ukraine and the EU on Ukraine and Russian sanctions ? Its Tisza. I think Tiza was a fizzy drink. They are also opposed to helping Ukraine. Not quite… they are not opposed to blocking or vetoing help for Ukraine which is what Orban was doing……. This is now going to help both NATO and the EU from help militarily and the big financial aid package to help This is a win for Europe " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Orban concedes.. Early predictions It'll be a large majority for Magyars party.. There are many upsides to this outcome."
Agreed.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It looks like trump's pick, Orban, may be ousted by the Tiza party. Could lead to closer ties with Ukraine and the EU on Ukraine and Russian sanctions ? Its Tisza. I think Tiza was a fizzy drink. They are also opposed to helping Ukraine." Autocorrect but everyone else seemed to understand 🙄 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It looks like trump's pick, Orban, may be ousted by the Tiza party. Could lead to closer ties with Ukraine and the EU on Ukraine and Russian sanctions ? Its Tisza. I think Tiza was a fizzy drink. They are also opposed to helping Ukraine. Autocorrect but everyone else seemed to understand 🙄" Indeed, but if we are to celebrate this achievement I think it's appropriate to use the correct party name. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Will be interesting to see if the majority is big enough to change many of the cardinal laws that were put in place by Orban. This will be needed if Hungary is going to start to revert many of the controls that are in place at the moment." Looks like the majority is going to be huge so it will be possible to change almost all the laws. I guess the question now is what kind of party has _actually_ been elected? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Will be interesting to see if the majority is big enough to change many of the cardinal laws that were put in place by Orban. This will be needed if Hungary is going to start to revert many of the controls that are in place at the moment. Looks like the majority is going to be huge so it will be possible to change almost all the laws. I guess the question now is what kind of party has _actually_ been elected?" My understanding is that the elected party is also a right wing party, only not a Putin simp this time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Will be interesting to see if the majority is big enough to change many of the cardinal laws that were put in place by Orban. This will be needed if Hungary is going to start to revert many of the controls that are in place at the moment. Looks like the majority is going to be huge so it will be possible to change almost all the laws. I guess the question now is what kind of party has _actually_ been elected? My understanding is that the elected party is also a right wing party, only not a Putin simp this time." Yes, it's centre right, probably between the Tories and Reform on our terms. Orban's nationalist and anti immigration policies are still pretty popular, it's his party's corruption that has brought him down. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Poor ol' Lady Eyes Vance is having a shocker: Campaigns for AfD in Germany - they lose. Invites the Pope to Trump’s wankathon - pope declines Leads peace negotiations with Iran - big fail Campaigns for Orbán - who then gets spanked in the election. How long before Fat Donnie eyes him as his next scapegoat?" Vance’s visit to Hungary to push for Orbán seems to have achieved the square root of feck all. Hopefully he’ll will come to the UK to cheer on Farage | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It looks like trump's pick, Orban, may be ousted by the Tiza party. Could lead to closer ties with Ukraine and the EU on Ukraine and Russian sanctions ? Its Tisza. I think Tiza was a fizzy drink. They are also opposed to helping Ukraine. Autocorrect but everyone else seemed to understand 🙄 Indeed, but if we are to celebrate this achievement I think it's appropriate to use the correct party name." I have forwarded your concerns to Xiaomi and told them to sort out their phones autocorrect but I'm pretty sure, like everyone commenting that they won't give a flying fuck and I also sent an apologetic email to Peter Magyar who replied saying you deserve a blue Peter badge (at least I think that's what megérdemli az idióta jelvényt means👍 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It looks like trump's pick, Orban, may be ousted by the Tiza party. Could lead to closer ties with Ukraine and the EU on Ukraine and Russian sanctions ? Its Tisza. I think Tiza was a fizzy drink. They are also opposed to helping Ukraine. Autocorrect but everyone else seemed to understand 🙄 Indeed, but if we are to celebrate this achievement I think it's appropriate to use the correct party name. I have forwarded your concerns to Xiaomi and told them to sort out their phones autocorrect but I'm pretty sure, like everyone commenting that they won't give a flying fuck and I also sent an apologetic email to Peter Magyar who replied saying you deserve a blue Peter badge (at least I think that's what megérdemli az idióta jelvényt means👍" Egészségére ! 🍻 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It looks like trump's pick, Orban, may be ousted by the Tiza party. Could lead to closer ties with Ukraine and the EU on Ukraine and Russian sanctions ?" Good news for Hungary especially if they get a grip on corruption. Bad news for Russia as more support for Ukraine should be unlocked | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Will be interesting to see if the majority is big enough to change many of the cardinal laws that were put in place by Orban. This will be needed if Hungary is going to start to revert many of the controls that are in place at the moment. Looks like the majority is going to be huge so it will be possible to change almost all the laws. I guess the question now is what kind of party has _actually_ been elected? My understanding is that the elected party is also a right wing party, only not a Putin simp this time." Exactly but that's fine! Right wing opinions are fine Left wing opinions are fine It's the crazy, international nationalists that spout hate that's not. And Orbàn was the playbook. It's a significant defeat. But the fight against that brand goes on, Trump and Putin are still in power and waging war | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Will be interesting to see if the majority is big enough to change many of the cardinal laws that were put in place by Orban. This will be needed if Hungary is going to start to revert many of the controls that are in place at the moment. Looks like the majority is going to be huge so it will be possible to change almost all the laws. I guess the question now is what kind of party has _actually_ been elected? My understanding is that the elected party is also a right wing party, only not a Putin simp this time. Exactly but that's fine! Right wing opinions are fine Left wing opinions are fine It's the crazy, international nationalists that spout hate that's not. And Orbàn was the playbook. It's a significant defeat. But the fight against that brand goes on, Trump and Putin are still in power and waging war " Curious, what's an international nationalist? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Will be interesting to see if the majority is big enough to change many of the cardinal laws that were put in place by Orban. This will be needed if Hungary is going to start to revert many of the controls that are in place at the moment. Looks like the majority is going to be huge so it will be possible to change almost all the laws. I guess the question now is what kind of party has _actually_ been elected? My understanding is that the elected party is also a right wing party, only not a Putin simp this time. Exactly but that's fine! Right wing opinions are fine Left wing opinions are fine It's the crazy, international nationalists that spout hate that's not. And Orbàn was the playbook. It's a significant defeat. But the fight against that brand goes on, Trump and Putin are still in power and waging war Curious, what's an international nationalist?" Yeah it's really interesting. All these nationalists including, Farage, Trump, Orbàn, the worst imaginable people are supposed to be nationalist Maga, you know the type plastic patriots. Well they're all actually very well funded by eachother. So Matt Goodin you know the badlooser from Gorton was paid £10,000 a month by Orbàn think tank. Steve Bannon is supposed to be behind Brexit, Farage, Orbàn, Trump. So they play the card of nationalist at home but ultimately they are international feeding off eachothers money and think tanks | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know how they accuse George Soros of paying for any left wing candidates. Well, all you have to remember with these far right grifters is every accusation is an admission " Orbán actually worked for the Soros foundation and they funded his studies at Oxford in 1989. That relationship hasn’t aged well. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Did Soros leave them or did they leave Soros?" I would say Orban is the one who’s position has shifted the most (and the Orban that lost the election would be unrecognisable to the one that went to Oxford). Soros became a target for Orban during the migration crisis of 2015. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So Matt Goodin you know the badlooser from Gorton was paid £10,000 a month by Orbàn think tank. Steve Bannon is supposed to be behind Brexit, Farage, Orbàn, Trump. So they play the card of nationalist at home but ultimately they are international feeding off eachothers money and think tanks " What does nationalism mean to you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So Matt Goodin you know the badlooser from Gorton was paid £10,000 a month by Orbàn think tank. Steve Bannon is supposed to be behind Brexit, Farage, Orbàn, Trump. So they play the card of nationalist at home but ultimately they are international feeding off eachothers money and think tanks What does nationalism mean to you?" Me personally? Someone who's proud of their country as it is, not how their grandmother saw it. Happy to pitch in the community, sees paying taxes as a patriotic duty second only to serve the army, RAF, navy or as a diplomat or spy! Accept Britain used to be colonial power and we have responsibilities in the world. Accept we are now a middle power, liberal in attitude and open for trade. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm hoping that the anti-LGBTQ+ repression that Orban developed in Hungary is stopped ASAP. He'd taken a leaf out of Putin's obscene playbook, that criminalised people for being themselves and deeming it propaganda. " It's not definite, Magyar didn't campaign on it but he did give it a nod in his acceptance speech, I paraphrase but he said something like "I want Hungary to be a place where you can love who you want" so it's a nod to progressive | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So Matt Goodin you know the badlooser from Gorton was paid £10,000 a month by Orbàn think tank. Steve Bannon is supposed to be behind Brexit, Farage, Orbàn, Trump. So they play the card of nationalist at home but ultimately they are international feeding off eachothers money and think tanks What does nationalism mean to you? Me personally? Someone who's proud of their country as it is, not how their grandmother saw it. Happy to pitch in the community, sees paying taxes as a patriotic duty second only to serve the army, RAF, navy or as a diplomat or spy! Accept Britain used to be colonial power and we have responsibilities in the world. Accept we are now a middle power, liberal in attitude and open for trade." So how does Matt Goodwin receiving money from another country go against him being a Nationalist? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm hoping that the anti-LGBTQ+ repression that Orban developed in Hungary is stopped ASAP. He'd taken a leaf out of Putin's obscene playbook, that criminalised people for being themselves and deeming it propaganda. It's not definite, Magyar didn't campaign on it but he did give it a nod in his acceptance speech, I paraphrase but he said something like "I want Hungary to be a place where you can love who you want" so it's a nod to progressive " Thank goodness for that ! That's a Humanistic outlook. Hungary threw off the yoke of authoritarianism at long last. Let's hope other liberal parties in the EU take heart. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So Matt Goodin you know the badlooser from Gorton was paid £10,000 a month by Orbàn think tank. Steve Bannon is supposed to be behind Brexit, Farage, Orbàn, Trump. So they play the card of nationalist at home but ultimately they are international feeding off eachothers money and think tanks What does nationalism mean to you? Me personally? Someone who's proud of their country as it is, not how their grandmother saw it. Happy to pitch in the community, sees paying taxes as a patriotic duty second only to serve the army, RAF, navy or as a diplomat or spy! Accept Britain used to be colonial power and we have responsibilities in the world. Accept we are now a middle power, liberal in attitude and open for trade. So how does Matt Goodwin receiving money from another country go against him being a Nationalist?" Is working for another state patriotic? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So Matt Goodin you know the badlooser from Gorton was paid £10,000 a month by Orbàn think tank. Steve Bannon is supposed to be behind Brexit, Farage, Orbàn, Trump. So they play the card of nationalist at home but ultimately they are international feeding off eachothers money and think tanks What does nationalism mean to you? Me personally? Someone who's proud of their country as it is, not how their grandmother saw it. Happy to pitch in the community, sees paying taxes as a patriotic duty second only to serve the army, RAF, navy or as a diplomat or spy! Accept Britain used to be colonial power and we have responsibilities in the world. Accept we are now a middle power, liberal in attitude and open for trade. So how does Matt Goodwin receiving money from another country go against him being a Nationalist? Is working for another state patriotic?" He isn't working for another state. If someone publishes a book that's bought by Nazis, does it mean that he works for Nazis? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So Matt Goodin you know the badlooser from Gorton was paid £10,000 a month by Orbàn think tank. Steve Bannon is supposed to be behind Brexit, Farage, Orbàn, Trump. So they play the card of nationalist at home but ultimately they are international feeding off eachothers money and think tanks What does nationalism mean to you? Me personally? Someone who's proud of their country as it is, not how their grandmother saw it. Happy to pitch in the community, sees paying taxes as a patriotic duty second only to serve the army, RAF, navy or as a diplomat or spy! Accept Britain used to be colonial power and we have responsibilities in the world. Accept we are now a middle power, liberal in attitude and open for trade. So how does Matt Goodwin receiving money from another country go against him being a Nationalist? Is working for another state patriotic? He isn't working for another state. If someone publishes a book that's bought by Nazis, does it mean that he works for Nazis?" That's not what Matt did. Matt is funded directly by Orbàn think tank by £10,000 a month. Who's interest do you think he has at heart? Gorton and Denton? Or the ex fascist in Hungary? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So Matt Goodin you know the badlooser from Gorton was paid £10,000 a month by Orbàn think tank. Steve Bannon is supposed to be behind Brexit, Farage, Orbàn, Trump. So they play the card of nationalist at home but ultimately they are international feeding off eachothers money and think tanks What does nationalism mean to you? Me personally? Someone who's proud of their country as it is, not how their grandmother saw it. Happy to pitch in the community, sees paying taxes as a patriotic duty second only to serve the army, RAF, navy or as a diplomat or spy! Accept Britain used to be colonial power and we have responsibilities in the world. Accept we are now a middle power, liberal in attitude and open for trade. So how does Matt Goodwin receiving money from another country go against him being a Nationalist? Is working for another state patriotic? He isn't working for another state. If someone publishes a book that's bought by Nazis, does it mean that he works for Nazis? That's not what Matt did. Matt is funded directly by Orbàn think tank by £10,000 a month. Who's interest do you think he has at heart? Gorton and Denton? Or the ex fascist in Hungary?" Even if he didn't get money from Orban, he would continue doing what he is doing because he is not dependent on Orban's money. He has other sources of income. So no, he doesn't work for Orban. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So Matt Goodin you know the badlooser from Gorton was paid £10,000 a month by Orbàn think tank. Steve Bannon is supposed to be behind Brexit, Farage, Orbàn, Trump. So they play the card of nationalist at home but ultimately they are international feeding off eachothers money and think tanks What does nationalism mean to you? Me personally? Someone who's proud of their country as it is, not how their grandmother saw it. Happy to pitch in the community, sees paying taxes as a patriotic duty second only to serve the army, RAF, navy or as a diplomat or spy! Accept Britain used to be colonial power and we have responsibilities in the world. Accept we are now a middle power, liberal in attitude and open for trade. So how does Matt Goodwin receiving money from another country go against him being a Nationalist? Is working for another state patriotic? He isn't working for another state. If someone publishes a book that's bought by Nazis, does it mean that he works for Nazis? That's not what Matt did. Matt is funded directly by Orbàn think tank by £10,000 a month. Who's interest do you think he has at heart? Gorton and Denton? Or the ex fascist in Hungary? Even if he didn't get money from Orban, he would continue doing what he is doing because he is not dependent on Orban's money. He has other sources of income. So no, he doesn't work for Orban." Ok I'll put you down as a Badloose fan. So while we're looking at foreign money in Reform, Nathan Gill? He legitimate too? Once might be mistake, twice? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So Matt Goodin you know the badlooser from Gorton was paid £10,000 a month by Orbàn think tank. Steve Bannon is supposed to be behind Brexit, Farage, Orbàn, Trump. So they play the card of nationalist at home but ultimately they are international feeding off eachothers money and think tanks What does nationalism mean to you? Me personally? Someone who's proud of their country as it is, not how their grandmother saw it. Happy to pitch in the community, sees paying taxes as a patriotic duty second only to serve the army, RAF, navy or as a diplomat or spy! Accept Britain used to be colonial power and we have responsibilities in the world. Accept we are now a middle power, liberal in attitude and open for trade. So how does Matt Goodwin receiving money from another country go against him being a Nationalist? Is working for another state patriotic? He isn't working for another state. If someone publishes a book that's bought by Nazis, does it mean that he works for Nazis? That's not what Matt did. Matt is funded directly by Orbàn think tank by £10,000 a month. Who's interest do you think he has at heart? Gorton and Denton? Or the ex fascist in Hungary? Even if he didn't get money from Orban, he would continue doing what he is doing because he is not dependent on Orban's money. He has other sources of income. So no, he doesn't work for Orban. Ok I'll put you down as a Badloose fan. So while we're looking at foreign money in Reform, Nathan Gill? He legitimate too? Once might be mistake, twice?" I am not serious supporters of any of these people. I am pointing out that someone receiving money from a different country isn't evidence against one being a Nationalist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So Matt Goodin you know the badlooser from Gorton was paid £10,000 a month by Orbàn think tank. Steve Bannon is supposed to be behind Brexit, Farage, Orbàn, Trump. So they play the card of nationalist at home but ultimately they are international feeding off eachothers money and think tanks What does nationalism mean to you? Me personally? Someone who's proud of their country as it is, not how their grandmother saw it. Happy to pitch in the community, sees paying taxes as a patriotic duty second only to serve the army, RAF, navy or as a diplomat or spy! Accept Britain used to be colonial power and we have responsibilities in the world. Accept we are now a middle power, liberal in attitude and open for trade. So how does Matt Goodwin receiving money from another country go against him being a Nationalist? Is working for another state patriotic? He isn't working for another state. If someone publishes a book that's bought by Nazis, does it mean that he works for Nazis? That's not what Matt did. Matt is funded directly by Orbàn think tank by £10,000 a month. Who's interest do you think he has at heart? Gorton and Denton? Or the ex fascist in Hungary? Even if he didn't get money from Orban, he would continue doing what he is doing because he is not dependent on Orban's money. He has other sources of income. So no, he doesn't work for Orban. Ok I'll put you down as a Badloose fan. So while we're looking at foreign money in Reform, Nathan Gill? He legitimate too? Once might be mistake, twice? I am not serious supporters of any of these people. I am pointing out that someone receiving money from a different country isn't evidence against one being a Nationalist." A person living here and working remotely receiving a salary from a different country is fine, it's liberal Britain. However, you moving the goal posts after every reply shows you aren't ernest. But I'll play along, a person running for the British parliament being funded by an extreme right wing think tank by the tune of £10,000 a month isn't what one would call patriotic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am not serious supporters of any of these people. I am pointing out that someone receiving money from a different country isn't evidence against one being a Nationalist. A person living here and working remotely receiving a salary from a different country is fine, it's liberal Britain. However, you moving the goal posts after every reply shows you aren't ernest. " I never moved goal posts. Not sure where that allegation is coming from. " But I'll play along, a person running for the British parliament being funded by an extreme right wing think tank by the tune of £10,000 a month isn't what one would call patriotic. " That's like saying any party that received funding from rich people isn't socialist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am not serious supporters of any of these people. I am pointing out that someone receiving money from a different country isn't evidence against one being a Nationalist. A person living here and working remotely receiving a salary from a different country is fine, it's liberal Britain. However, you moving the goal posts after every reply shows you aren't ernest. I never moved goal posts. Not sure where that allegation is coming from. But I'll play along, a person running for the British parliament being funded by an extreme right wing think tank by the tune of £10,000 a month isn't what one would call patriotic. That's like saying any party that received funding from rich people isn't socialist. " They by an large aren't. This nation that Britain or labour are socialist is for the birds!! My comment should have included foreign! A candidate for a British election shouldn't be funded by a foreign think tank! Ah, Nathan? How's prison? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" They by an large aren't. This nation that Britain or labour are socialist is for the birds!! My comment should have included foreign! " How about the green party? Surely they shouldn't receive funding from anyone driving a petrol car? " A candidate for a British election shouldn't be funded by a foreign think tank! Ah, Nathan? How's prison?" Now, you are the one moving goal post. I don't mind anyone wanting to ban foreign funds. My argument was that receiving foreign funds and nationalism doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Green party voters don't live in the real world? Where cars are needed to go to work?" I specifically mention petrol cars, in case you have missed it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Green party voters don't live in the real world? Where cars are needed to go to work? I specifically mention petrol cars, in case you have missed it." Most cars are petrol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As if all green voters can afford electric cars " Definitely the ones who pay tens/hundreds of thousands to a political party can. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As if all green voters can afford electric cars Definitely the ones who pay tens/hundreds of thousands to a political party can." I see so that's all of them then, seeing as they are now third to conservatives and Reform I doubt it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As if all green voters can afford electric cars Definitely the ones who pay tens/hundreds of thousands to a political party can. I see so that's all of them then, seeing as they are now third to conservatives and Reform I doubt it " Green party has rich donors. According to your logic, if nationalists shouldn't receive money from foreigners, socialist parties shouldn't get money from rich people and green party shouldn't get money from people who drive non-electric cars right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can surely differentiate between why receiving outside influence on to a British state is different to receiving influence from within?" That's not the point we are arguing about though? I am saying that Nationalism and getting foreign donations don't have to be mutually exclusive, just like being a green party and getting donations from people using petrol cars don't have to be mutually exclusive either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can surely differentiate between why receiving outside influence on to a British state is different to receiving influence from within? That's not the point we are arguing about though? I am saying that Nationalism and getting foreign donations don't have to be mutually exclusive, just like being a green party and getting donations from people using petrol cars don't have to be mutually exclusive either." You wouldn't expect a nationalist to get their money from the country they pretend to care about? But a green party voter shouldn't participate in the oil capitalist world we exist in? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can surely differentiate between why receiving outside influence on to a British state is different to receiving influence from within? That's not the point we are arguing about though? I am saying that Nationalism and getting foreign donations don't have to be mutually exclusive, just like being a green party and getting donations from people using petrol cars don't have to be mutually exclusive either. You wouldn't expect a nationalist to get their money from the country they pretend to care about? But a green party voter shouldn't participate in the oil capitalist world we exist in?" If one of them is a hypocrite, the other is also a hypocrite. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can surely differentiate between why receiving outside influence on to a British state is different to receiving influence from within? That's not the point we are arguing about though? I am saying that Nationalism and getting foreign donations don't have to be mutually exclusive, just like being a green party and getting donations from people using petrol cars don't have to be mutually exclusive either. You wouldn't expect a nationalist to get their money from the country they pretend to care about? But a green party voter shouldn't participate in the oil capitalist world we exist in? If one of them is a hypocrite, the other is also a hypocrite." Not really, you can be a nationalist and make money in Britain. You can't exactly live in rural Britain and not depend on petrol/diesel run around. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can surely differentiate between why receiving outside influence on to a British state is different to receiving influence from within? That's not the point we are arguing about though? I am saying that Nationalism and getting foreign donations don't have to be mutually exclusive, just like being a green party and getting donations from people using petrol cars don't have to be mutually exclusive either. You wouldn't expect a nationalist to get their money from the country they pretend to care about? But a green party voter shouldn't participate in the oil capitalist world we exist in? If one of them is a hypocrite, the other is also a hypocrite. Not really, you can be a nationalist and make money in Britain. You can't exactly live in rural Britain and not depend on petrol/diesel run around. " I am pretty sure I answered that already. There are rich donors who donate to the Green party. Not exactly the "rural Britain" types. Should Green party put up a condition that they won't take any donations over £30,000 from someone who uses petrol car and flies in airlines for holidays? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And some of us live in the real world" Sounds about right | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But that's not what Farage plays. He plays the Britain is broken card. And then blames migrants especially Muslims." Mostly he blames socialism, and government overreach. He uses migrants as an example of 'Benefits Britain'. "He sows division, based on religion and how much melanin you produce as lines on why we should dislike eachother." He's never once talked about melanin levels. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What does nationalism mean to you?" "Me personally? Someone who's proud of their country as it is, not how their grandmother saw it." So if Reform win a majority at the next general election, will you still be proud of Britain and its new government? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But that's not what Farage plays. He plays the Britain is broken card. And then blames migrants especially Muslims. Mostly he blames socialism, and government overreach. He uses migrants as an example of 'Benefits Britain'." I’m glad you said he blames things other than Socialism. Seeing as the UK hasn’t had what could be remotely described as a Socialist government since the 1970s, he’d be barking up the wrong tree really. Farage by the way, who wanted to renationalise British Steel. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But that's not what Farage plays. He plays the Britain is broken card. And then blames migrants especially Muslims. Mostly he blames socialism, and government overreach. He uses migrants as an example of 'Benefits Britain'. I’m glad you said he blames things other than Socialism. Seeing as the UK hasn’t had what could be remotely described as a Socialist government since the 1970s, he’d be barking up the wrong tree really. Farage by the way, who wanted to renationalise British Steel. " Not even "remotely socialist"? What is socialism according to you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Not even "remotely socialist"? What is socialism according to you?" Nationalised health Public broadcasting Some elements of state owned infrastructure Collective protection of vulnerable citizens and the redistribution of resources to prevent extreme poverty -State pensions -Subsidised housing Progressive taxation Inheritance tax (wealth distribution) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But that's not what Farage plays. He plays the Britain is broken card. And then blames migrants especially Muslims. Mostly he blames socialism, and government overreach. He uses migrants as an example of 'Benefits Britain'. I’m glad you said he blames things other than Socialism. Seeing as the UK hasn’t had what could be remotely described as a Socialist government since the 1970s, he’d be barking up the wrong tree really. Farage by the way, who wanted to renationalise British Steel. Not even "remotely socialist"? What is socialism according to you?" Nationalised energy, water & public transport etc Council housing built at scale / no right to buy Taxing wealth more than we have done in recent times Stronger trade unions & workers rights More taxes on big business profits No PFI money in the NHS etc | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But that's not what Farage plays. He plays the Britain is broken card. And then blames migrants especially Muslims." "Mostly he blames socialism, and government overreach. He uses migrants as an example of 'Benefits Britain'." "I’m glad you said he blames things other than Socialism. Seeing as the UK hasn’t had what could be remotely described as a Socialist government since the 1970s, he’d be barking up the wrong tree really." I shouldn't have said "socialism" since it means different things to different people. What I meant was 'excessive and unjustified redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor'. We can argue all day about what excessive means, but in Farage's mind Britain does too much of it. "Farage by the way, who wanted to renationalise British Steel." There's nothing socialist about nationalising the country's last steel mill if you need that steel for military purposes. Again, I'm not saying that's true, but it's what Farage was saying. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But that's not what Farage plays. He plays the Britain is broken card. And then blames migrants especially Muslims. Mostly he blames socialism, and government overreach. He uses migrants as an example of 'Benefits Britain'. I’m glad you said he blames things other than Socialism. Seeing as the UK hasn’t had what could be remotely described as a Socialist government since the 1970s, he’d be barking up the wrong tree really. Farage by the way, who wanted to renationalise British Steel. Not even "remotely socialist"? What is socialism according to you? Nationalised energy, water & public transport etc Council housing built at scale / no right to buy Taxing wealth more than we have done in recent times Stronger trade unions & workers rights More taxes on big business profits No PFI money in the NHS etc " We have nationalised healthcare. We do have high taxes on high earners. We are one of the biggest spenders on benefits. The government does run part of rail operations through network rail. Council housing is a thing. The government as always being an inefficient organisation doesn't mean it's not a socialist ideology. Considering all this, don't you think that UK is at least a little bit socialist and claiming that it's not even "remotely" socialist is an exaggeration? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But that's not what Farage plays. He plays the Britain is broken card. And then blames migrants especially Muslims. Mostly he blames socialism, and government overreach. He uses migrants as an example of 'Benefits Britain'. I’m glad you said he blames things other than Socialism. Seeing as the UK hasn’t had what could be remotely described as a Socialist government since the 1970s, he’d be barking up the wrong tree really. Farage by the way, who wanted to renationalise British Steel. Not even "remotely socialist"? What is socialism according to you? Nationalised energy, water & public transport etc Council housing built at scale / no right to buy Taxing wealth more than we have done in recent times Stronger trade unions & workers rights More taxes on big business profits No PFI money in the NHS etc We have nationalised healthcare. We do have high taxes on high earners. We are one of the biggest spenders on benefits. The government does run part of rail operations through network rail. Council housing is a thing. The government as always being an inefficient organisation doesn't mean it's not a socialist ideology. Considering all this, don't you think that UK is at least a little bit socialist and claiming that it's not even "remotely" socialist is an exaggeration?" Ok, I’ll give you that state provision is still there, but the UK is a lot less Socialist than it was 50 years ago though & a bona fide Socialist would tell you it isn’t Socialist enough. Taxes on high earners - less than the 1970s NHS - creeping privatisation Network Rail - only renationalised because privatisation failed Council housing - sold off in no small numbers & not replaced to the same kinds of levels, down by 1.4 million since 1980 with a larger population. Coupled with the points about selling off state assets & weaker Unions. So ‘remotely’ may have been an overly strong term, so I’ll re-evaluate and say ‘significantly less Socialism is evident in UK 2026 than it was in 1979’ then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nationalised energy, water & public transport etc Council housing built at scale / no right to buy Taxing wealth more than we have done in recent times Stronger trade unions & workers rights More taxes on big business profits No PFI money in the NHS etc We have nationalised healthcare. We do have high taxes on high earners. We are one of the biggest spenders on benefits. The government does run part of rail operations through network rail. Council housing is a thing. The government as always being an inefficient organisation doesn't mean it's not a socialist ideology. Considering all this, don't you think that UK is at least a little bit socialist and claiming that it's not even "remotely" socialist is an exaggeration? Ok, I’ll give you that state provision is still there, but the UK is a lot less Socialist than it was 50 years ago though & a bona fide Socialist would tell you it isn’t Socialist enough. " When has any country ever been "socialist enough" for the socialists? After all "real socialism" has never been tried right? " Taxes on high earners - less than the 1970s " Why MUST tax be higher just for the sake of it? Someone works hard, innovates, takes risks and earns more. Why so much hatred towards people who earn more? " NHS - creeping privatisation Network Rail - only renationalised because privatisation failed " And nationalisation worked? " Council housing - sold off in no small numbers & not replaced to the same kinds of levels, down by 1.4 million since 1980 with a larger population. Coupled with the points about selling off state assets & weaker Unions. So ‘remotely’ may have been an overly strong term, so I’ll re-evaluate and say ‘significantly less Socialism is evident in UK 2026 than it was in 1979’ then. " Sure it's definitely less socialist than 1979. But going by what I read about the state of the country in 1979, I would gladly pick the current economic situation over 1979. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nationalised energy, water & public transport etc Council housing built at scale / no right to buy Taxing wealth more than we have done in recent times Stronger trade unions & workers rights More taxes on big business profits No PFI money in the NHS etc We have nationalised healthcare. We do have high taxes on high earners. We are one of the biggest spenders on benefits. The government does run part of rail operations through network rail. Council housing is a thing. The government as always being an inefficient organisation doesn't mean it's not a socialist ideology. Considering all this, don't you think that UK is at least a little bit socialist and claiming that it's not even "remotely" socialist is an exaggeration? Ok, I’ll give you that state provision is still there, but the UK is a lot less Socialist than it was 50 years ago though & a bona fide Socialist would tell you it isn’t Socialist enough. When has any country ever been "socialist enough" for the socialists? After all "real socialism" has never been tried right? Taxes on high earners - less than the 1970s Why MUST tax be higher just for the sake of it? Someone works hard, innovates, takes risks and earns more. Why so much hatred towards people who earn more? NHS - creeping privatisation Network Rail - only renationalised because privatisation failed And nationalisation worked? Council housing - sold off in no small numbers & not replaced to the same kinds of levels, down by 1.4 million since 1980 with a larger population. Coupled with the points about selling off state assets & weaker Unions. So ‘remotely’ may have been an overly strong term, so I’ll re-evaluate and say ‘significantly less Socialism is evident in UK 2026 than it was in 1979’ then. Sure it's definitely less socialist than 1979. But going by what I read about the state of the country in 1979, I would gladly pick the current economic situation over 1979." You are getting into a general debate about the pros & cons (mainly cons!) of Socialism here. I responded to a poster saying Nigel Farage would blame Socialism for the state of broken Britain today, which to be fair, he then conceded he shouldn’t have used that word as it is a nebulous term. So, I’m not going to get into a general debate about Socialism, other than to say in my own personal opinion, yes, some things have improved since then, but some things also have not improved. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" When has any country ever been "socialist enough" for the socialists? After all "real socialism" has never been tried right? " Depends on how you define it. If your going by socialism according to Marx, then no. If you're looking at countries that simply slapped the label on (DDR, DRC), then also no. Most people who identify as Socialist look to the Scandi countries, which seem to have made a fairly good job of it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" When has any country ever been "socialist enough" for the socialists? After all "real socialism" has never been tried right? Depends on how you define it. If your going by socialism according to Marx, then no. If you're looking at countries that simply slapped the label on (DDR, DRC), then also no. Most people who identify as Socialist look to the Scandi countries, which seem to have made a fairly good job of it." The problem with the ones who say they want the "Scandinavian model" is that the taxation model they propose doesn't really follow the Scandinavian model. Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Denmark, Finland don't tax "those wealthy rich people". In fact, they don't even have wealth tax. Their tax model is to impose high taxes on everyone. In Sweden, even the lowest of wage earners pay a municipal tax of 32% and the ones earning over an equivalent od over £52,000 annually, pay an additional national tax of 20% Their tax model is "We are in this together. Everyone must contribute." They don't follow "Those rich people must be taxed as high as possible" model that the left wingers in Western Europe or the US propose. Are the fans of the "Scandinavian model" willing to increase tax rates to 32% for even the lowest earners? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What does nationalism mean to you? Me personally? Someone who's proud of their country as it is, not how their grandmother saw it. So if Reform win a majority at the next general election, will you still be proud of Britain and its new government?" Britain, yes, the British people no. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But that's not what Farage plays. He plays the Britain is broken card. And then blames migrants especially Muslims. Mostly he blames socialism, and government overreach. He uses migrants as an example of 'Benefits Britain'. He sows division, based on religion and how much melanin you produce as lines on why we should dislike eachother. He's never once talked about melanin levels." He speaks of immigration? What's that an euphemism fore? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But that's not what Farage plays. He plays the Britain is broken card. And then blames migrants especially Muslims. Mostly he blames socialism, and government overreach. He uses migrants as an example of 'Benefits Britain'. I’m glad you said he blames things other than Socialism. Seeing as the UK hasn’t had what could be remotely described as a Socialist government since the 1970s, he’d be barking up the wrong tree really. Farage by the way, who wanted to renationalise British Steel. Not even "remotely socialist"? What is socialism according to you? Nationalised energy, water & public transport etc Council housing built at scale / no right to buy Taxing wealth more than we have done in recent times Stronger trade unions & workers rights More taxes on big business profits No PFI money in the NHS etc We have nationalised healthcare. We do have high taxes on high earners. We are one of the biggest spenders on benefits. The government does run part of rail operations through network rail. Council housing is a thing. The government as always being an inefficient organisation doesn't mean it's not a socialist ideology. Considering all this, don't you think that UK is at least a little bit socialist and claiming that it's not even "remotely" socialist is an exaggeration?" We could have nationalised oil instead of privatised everything apart from the NHS!! Norway nationalised oil and guess who's doing better???? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nationalised energy, water & public transport etc Council housing built at scale / no right to buy Taxing wealth more than we have done in recent times Stronger trade unions & workers rights More taxes on big business profits No PFI money in the NHS etc We have nationalised healthcare. We do have high taxes on high earners. We are one of the biggest spenders on benefits. The government does run part of rail operations through network rail. Council housing is a thing. The government as always being an inefficient organisation doesn't mean it's not a socialist ideology. Considering all this, don't you think that UK is at least a little bit socialist and claiming that it's not even "remotely" socialist is an exaggeration? Ok, I’ll give you that state provision is still there, but the UK is a lot less Socialist than it was 50 years ago though & a bona fide Socialist would tell you it isn’t Socialist enough. When has any country ever been "socialist enough" for the socialists? After all "real socialism" has never been tried right? Taxes on high earners - less than the 1970s Why MUST tax be higher just for the sake of it? Someone works hard, innovates, takes risks and earns more. Why so much hatred towards people who earn more? NHS - creeping privatisation Network Rail - only renationalised because privatisation failed And nationalisation worked? Council housing - sold off in no small numbers & not replaced to the same kinds of levels, down by 1.4 million since 1980 with a larger population. Coupled with the points about selling off state assets & weaker Unions. So ‘remotely’ may have been an overly strong term, so I’ll re-evaluate and say ‘significantly less Socialism is evident in UK 2026 than it was in 1979’ then. Sure it's definitely less socialist than 1979. But going by what I read about the state of the country in 1979, I would gladly pick the current economic situation over 1979." Is America capitalist enough for the capitalists? Have the wealthy run off with all the money yet? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What does nationalism mean to you?" "Me personally? Someone who's proud of their country as it is, not how their grandmother saw it." "So if Reform win a majority at the next general election, will you still be proud of Britain and its new government?" "Britain, yes, the British people no." So your sense of pride comes from the land and the history, not the people? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is America capitalist enough for the capitalists? Have the wealthy run off with all the money yet?" Does capitalism mean wealthy running of with all the money? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He sows division, based on religion and how much melanin you produce as lines on why we should dislike eachother." "He's never once talked about melanin levels." "He speaks of immigration? What's that an euphemism fore?" It isn't a euphemism, he's against uncontrolled immigration. In the most famous quote on the matter he said that he wouldn't want to live next to a house full of Romanians. That country is not known for its melanin surplus. If Farage is so adverse to melanin, why did he appoint Zia Yusuf to be Reform's Home Affairs Spokesman? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In Sweden, even the lowest of wage earners pay a municipal tax of 32% and the ones earning over an equivalent od over £52,000 annually, pay an additional national tax of 20% Their tax model is "We are in this together. Everyone must contribute." They don't follow "Those rich people must be taxed as high as possible" model that the left wingers in Western Europe or the US propose. Are the fans of the "Scandinavian model" willing to increase tax rates to 32% for even the lowest earners? " The Swedish don't charge 32% tax on the first pound / kroner. They also have a tax-free threshold just like us. Their top rate is 52% compared to the UK's of 45%. Yes the overall tax burden is higher than here but they get something for their money. It goes on public services and benefits rather than corporate welfare. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is America capitalist enough for the capitalists? Have the wealthy run off with all the money yet? Does capitalism mean wealthy running of with all the money?" Yes. The myth of "trickle down" is that eventually it all gets hoovered up. That's why the wealth disparity between the top 10% and the lower 90% gets ever larger. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That's why the wealth disparity between the top 10% and the lower 90% gets ever larger." Can you provide any figures to show that is happening in the UK? Or has the wealth gap got smaller for the past 20 years? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In Sweden, even the lowest of wage earners pay a municipal tax of 32% and the ones earning over an equivalent od over £52,000 annually, pay an additional national tax of 20% Their tax model is "We are in this together. Everyone must contribute." They don't follow "Those rich people must be taxed as high as possible" model that the left wingers in Western Europe or the US propose. Are the fans of the "Scandinavian model" willing to increase tax rates to 32% for even the lowest earners? The Swedish don't charge 32% tax on the first pound / kroner. They also have a tax-free threshold just like us. " I don't think so. The municipal tax applies on everyone. It's the national tax of additional 20% that kicks in after you earn over £52,000 annually. " Their top rate is 52% compared to the UK's of 45%. Yes the overall tax burden is higher than here but they get something for their money. It goes on public services and benefits rather than corporate welfare. " Are you willing to pay more tax from your own pockets? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is America capitalist enough for the capitalists? Have the wealthy run off with all the money yet? Does capitalism mean wealthy running of with all the money? Yes. The myth of "trickle down" is that eventually it all gets hoovered up. That's why the wealth disparity between the top 10% and the lower 90% gets ever larger." "Trickle down" is a term invented by left wingers who don't understand how economics work because they always wrongly believe that wealth is a zero sum game. What is the problem with disparity if the quality of lives of the poorest also increases in the process? Definitely much better than the left wing pinnacle of USSR where everyone is equally miserable, except for the elite politicians of course | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That's why the wealth disparity between the top 10% and the lower 90% gets ever larger. Can you provide any figures to show that is happening in the UK? Or has the wealth gap got smaller for the past 20 years?" Has the wealth gap got smaller over the last 20 years? if you are spending 30%-50% of your post-tax income on rent, you are not as rich as (for example) Gini coefficients would say you are. Rents now represent a significant transfer of money from the poor to the rich. And wealth inequality has definitely increased during the whole era of neoliberal economics when taken as a whole. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is America capitalist enough for the capitalists? Have the wealthy run off with all the money yet? Does capitalism mean wealthy running of with all the money?" Yes, when capitalism isn't intervened with it becomes consolidated in too few a hands. You can literally see it in America and it's happening here. It is the best way to create wealth but it needs a muscular state to redistribute it otherwise you get excesses, a lot of extremely poor people and a handful of mega rich people | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is America capitalist enough for the capitalists? Have the wealthy run off with all the money yet? Does capitalism mean wealthy running of with all the money? Yes, when capitalism isn't intervened with it becomes consolidated in too few a hands. You can literally see it in America and it's happening here. It is the best way to create wealth but it needs a muscular state to redistribute it otherwise you get excesses, a lot of extremely poor people and a handful of mega rich people " Yes the accumulation of assets: stocks, property & land etc trickles upwards as far as I see | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is America capitalist enough for the capitalists? Have the wealthy run off with all the money yet? Does capitalism mean wealthy running of with all the money? Yes, when capitalism isn't intervened with it becomes consolidated in too few a hands. You can literally see it in America and it's happening here. It is the best way to create wealth but it needs a muscular state to redistribute it otherwise you get excesses, a lot of extremely poor people and a handful of mega rich people " Why must it be redistributed? Didn't you learn your lessons from Stalin and Mao? As long as the baseline quality of living improves for everyone, why does it matter that some people have more wealth? Sounds more like envy towards the wealthy than compassion towards the weak to me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is America capitalist enough for the capitalists? Have the wealthy run off with all the money yet? Does capitalism mean wealthy running of with all the money? Yes, when capitalism isn't intervened with it becomes consolidated in too few a hands. You can literally see it in America and it's happening here. It is the best way to create wealth but it needs a muscular state to redistribute it otherwise you get excesses, a lot of extremely poor people and a handful of mega rich people Why must it be redistributed? Didn't you learn your lessons from Stalin and Mao? As long as the baseline quality of living improves for everyone, why does it matter that some people have more wealth? Sounds more like envy towards the wealthy than compassion towards the weak to me." You sound kind | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is America capitalist enough for the capitalists? Have the wealthy run off with all the money yet? Does capitalism mean wealthy running of with all the money? Yes, when capitalism isn't intervened with it becomes consolidated in too few a hands. You can literally see it in America and it's happening here. It is the best way to create wealth but it needs a muscular state to redistribute it otherwise you get excesses, a lot of extremely poor people and a handful of mega rich people Why must it be redistributed? Didn't you learn your lessons from Stalin and Mao? As long as the baseline quality of living improves for everyone, why does it matter that some people have more wealth? Sounds more like envy towards the wealthy than compassion towards the weak to me. You sound kind " Posting on the internet asking for the government to take money from other people's pockets to help others doesn't make you kind either. Kind people make personal sacrifices for the ones they are kind towards. Not expect the government to do it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is America capitalist enough for the capitalists? Have the wealthy run off with all the money yet? Does capitalism mean wealthy running of with all the money? Yes, when capitalism isn't intervened with it becomes consolidated in too few a hands. You can literally see it in America and it's happening here. It is the best way to create wealth but it needs a muscular state to redistribute it otherwise you get excesses, a lot of extremely poor people and a handful of mega rich people Why must it be redistributed? Didn't you learn your lessons from Stalin and Mao? As long as the baseline quality of living improves for everyone, why does it matter that some people have more wealth? Sounds more like envy towards the wealthy than compassion towards the weak to me. You sound kind Posting on the internet asking for the government to take money from other people's pockets to help others doesn't make you kind either. Kind people make personal sacrifices for the ones they are kind towards. Not expect the government to do it." It's there job, to make sure that life is worth living no matter how rishi you are | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is America capitalist enough for the capitalists? Have the wealthy run off with all the money yet? Does capitalism mean wealthy running of with all the money? Yes, when capitalism isn't intervened with it becomes consolidated in too few a hands. You can literally see it in America and it's happening here. It is the best way to create wealth but it needs a muscular state to redistribute it otherwise you get excesses, a lot of extremely poor people and a handful of mega rich people Why must it be redistributed? Didn't you learn your lessons from Stalin and Mao? As long as the baseline quality of living improves for everyone, why does it matter that some people have more wealth? Sounds more like envy towards the wealthy than compassion towards the weak to me. You sound kind Posting on the internet asking for the government to take money from other people's pockets to help others doesn't make you kind either. Kind people make personal sacrifices for the ones they are kind towards. Not expect the government to do it. It's there job, to make sure that life is worth living no matter how rishi you are " Yeah Stalin definitely showed that life is worth living. Pretty sure that the tens of millions who died of starvation would have had that realisation. The government is not people's mommy and daddy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is America capitalist enough for the capitalists? Have the wealthy run off with all the money yet? Does capitalism mean wealthy running of with all the money? Yes, when capitalism isn't intervened with it becomes consolidated in too few a hands. You can literally see it in America and it's happening here. It is the best way to create wealth but it needs a muscular state to redistribute it otherwise you get excesses, a lot of extremely poor people and a handful of mega rich people Why must it be redistributed? Didn't you learn your lessons from Stalin and Mao? As long as the baseline quality of living improves for everyone, why does it matter that some people have more wealth? Sounds more like envy towards the wealthy than compassion towards the weak to me. You sound kind Posting on the internet asking for the government to take money from other people's pockets to help others doesn't make you kind either. Kind people make personal sacrifices for the ones they are kind towards. Not expect the government to do it." Just interested how far you would take your line of thinking. It’s common knowledge public services in the UK are suffering from a lack of cash for example. In a small state, small government, low tax environment what services should the state be providing? If any? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is America capitalist enough for the capitalists? Have the wealthy run off with all the money yet? Does capitalism mean wealthy running of with all the money? Yes, when capitalism isn't intervened with it becomes consolidated in too few a hands. You can literally see it in America and it's happening here. It is the best way to create wealth but it needs a muscular state to redistribute it otherwise you get excesses, a lot of extremely poor people and a handful of mega rich people Why must it be redistributed? Didn't you learn your lessons from Stalin and Mao? As long as the baseline quality of living improves for everyone, why does it matter that some people have more wealth? Sounds more like envy towards the wealthy than compassion towards the weak to me. You sound kind Posting on the internet asking for the government to take money from other people's pockets to help others doesn't make you kind either. Kind people make personal sacrifices for the ones they are kind towards. Not expect the government to do it. Just interested how far you would take your line of thinking. It’s common knowledge public services in the UK are suffering from a lack of cash for example. In a small state, small government, low tax environment what services should the state be providing? If any?" Infrastructure and planning. Protecting people from violence and theft. Regulations that ensure full transparency for consumers and stops businesses from causing external damages - like polluting the environment. Strong military to defend the country and its borders. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is America capitalist enough for the capitalists? Have the wealthy run off with all the money yet? Does capitalism mean wealthy running of with all the money? Yes, when capitalism isn't intervened with it becomes consolidated in too few a hands. You can literally see it in America and it's happening here. It is the best way to create wealth but it needs a muscular state to redistribute it otherwise you get excesses, a lot of extremely poor people and a handful of mega rich people Why must it be redistributed? Didn't you learn your lessons from Stalin and Mao? As long as the baseline quality of living improves for everyone, why does it matter that some people have more wealth? Sounds more like envy towards the wealthy than compassion towards the weak to me. You sound kind Posting on the internet asking for the government to take money from other people's pockets to help others doesn't make you kind either. Kind people make personal sacrifices for the ones they are kind towards. Not expect the government to do it. Just interested how far you would take your line of thinking. It’s common knowledge public services in the UK are suffering from a lack of cash for example. In a small state, small government, low tax environment what services should the state be providing? If any? Infrastructure and planning. Protecting people from violence and theft. Regulations that ensure full transparency for consumers and stops businesses from causing external damages - like polluting the environment. Strong military to defend the country and its borders." So eg health & education & social care all private? Sounds a bit dystopian to me, haven’t we moved on from Victorian Britain? How could you honestly see that playing out? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They'd be the first to complain about the homelessness and crime if his world view was once again enacted. Maslow's hierarchy of needs shows that if you provide people with the basics it allows them the freedom to find the work they enjoy." Well the law & order budget would certainly be going up that’s for sure | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That's why the wealth disparity between the top 10% and the lower 90% gets ever larger. Can you provide any figures to show that is happening in the UK? Or has the wealth gap got smaller for the past 20 years?" It's in the ONS datasets. The wealth gap has most definitely increased and it's more noticeable at the extreme ends. Since 2008, the top 1% has increased its share of national wealth by 23%. The bottom 10% now have zero or negative wealth. If you focus on the lower 90, the total wealth held is about the same but it's shifted more towards the top end. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is America capitalist enough for the capitalists? Have the wealthy run off with all the money yet? Does capitalism mean wealthy running of with all the money? Yes, when capitalism isn't intervened with it becomes consolidated in too few a hands. You can literally see it in America and it's happening here. It is the best way to create wealth but it needs a muscular state to redistribute it otherwise you get excesses, a lot of extremely poor people and a handful of mega rich people Why must it be redistributed? Didn't you learn your lessons from Stalin and Mao? As long as the baseline quality of living improves for everyone, why does it matter that some people have more wealth? Sounds more like envy towards the wealthy than compassion towards the weak to me. You sound kind Posting on the internet asking for the government to take money from other people's pockets to help others doesn't make you kind either. Kind people make personal sacrifices for the ones they are kind towards. Not expect the government to do it. Just interested how far you would take your line of thinking. It’s common knowledge public services in the UK are suffering from a lack of cash for example. In a small state, small government, low tax environment what services should the state be providing? If any? Infrastructure and planning. Protecting people from violence and theft. Regulations that ensure full transparency for consumers and stops businesses from causing external damages - like polluting the environment. Strong military to defend the country and its borders. So eg health & education & social care all private? Sounds a bit dystopian to me, haven’t we moved on from Victorian Britain? How could you honestly see that playing out?" How exactly has the NHS played out? How long do you think it will survive? Private schools and healthcare exist in the UK and in many countries. What exactly is dystopian about it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They'd be the first to complain about the homelessness and crime if his world view was once again enacted. " How is the homelessness and crime situation in the UK now? " Maslow's hierarchy of needs shows that if you provide people with the basics it allows them the freedom to find the work they enjoy." Maslow's hierarchy of needs has been shown to have lot of fallacies. Even if it were true, people have gotten their basic needs better in capitalistic societies than socialist ones. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is America capitalist enough for the capitalists? Have the wealthy run off with all the money yet? Does capitalism mean wealthy running of with all the money? Yes, when capitalism isn't intervened with it becomes consolidated in too few a hands. You can literally see it in America and it's happening here. It is the best way to create wealth but it needs a muscular state to redistribute it otherwise you get excesses, a lot of extremely poor people and a handful of mega rich people Why must it be redistributed? Didn't you learn your lessons from Stalin and Mao? As long as the baseline quality of living improves for everyone, why does it matter that some people have more wealth? Sounds more like envy towards the wealthy than compassion towards the weak to me. You sound kind Posting on the internet asking for the government to take money from other people's pockets to help others doesn't make you kind either. Kind people make personal sacrifices for the ones they are kind towards. Not expect the government to do it. Just interested how far you would take your line of thinking. It’s common knowledge public services in the UK are suffering from a lack of cash for example. In a small state, small government, low tax environment what services should the state be providing? If any? Infrastructure and planning. Protecting people from violence and theft. Regulations that ensure full transparency for consumers and stops businesses from causing external damages - like polluting the environment. Strong military to defend the country and its borders. So eg health & education & social care all private? Sounds a bit dystopian to me, haven’t we moved on from Victorian Britain? How could you honestly see that playing out? How exactly has the NHS played out? How long do you think it will survive? Private schools and healthcare exist in the UK and in many countries. What exactly is dystopian about it? " NHS has played out well, no one has to worry about being ill in the UK. America, well good luck if you've got no insurance. That's the country you want? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They don't seem to understand that everything is connected, if your poor your more likely to be undernourished so you've got more health issues along side which your more likely to steal food and therefore crime will rise. Can't see further than their nose. It's the same as cutting foreign aid not realising that helping to keep countries stable reduces the numbers of refugees, helping with vaccinations helps keep diseases away from Britain. But no it's always about me, me, me with them." The question you have to ask is why were they poor in the first place? Why do they struggle to find a job? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They don't seem to understand that everything is connected, if your poor your more likely to be undernourished so you've got more health issues along side which your more likely to steal food and therefore crime will rise. Can't see further than their nose. It's the same as cutting foreign aid not realising that helping to keep countries stable reduces the numbers of refugees, helping with vaccinations helps keep diseases away from Britain. But no it's always about me, me, me with them. The question you have to ask is why were they poor in the first place? Why do they struggle to find a job? " Not everyone is born into wealth. Not everyone is born into a loving family. They might have learning difficulties. They might have been abused. All sorts of reasons can render someone poor, inequality is so backed in to British society the main reason is because your parents were poor. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" NHS has played out well, no one has to worry about being ill in the UK. " I personally know of two families who went back to India because someone in their families had chronic illnesses. NHS was dogshit and they didn't get proper treatment here. " America, well good luck if you've got no insurance. That's the country you want?" America does have government healthcare. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They don't seem to understand that everything is connected, if your poor your more likely to be undernourished so you've got more health issues along side which your more likely to steal food and therefore crime will rise. Can't see further than their nose. It's the same as cutting foreign aid not realising that helping to keep countries stable reduces the numbers of refugees, helping with vaccinations helps keep diseases away from Britain. But no it's always about me, me, me with them. The question you have to ask is why were they poor in the first place? Why do they struggle to find a job? " This sounds dangerously like "poor people only have themselves to blame". You understand that we're not all dealt the same hand in life, right? That the Eton educated trust fund kids are not starting from the same place as the sink estate kids with a single parent. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They don't seem to understand that everything is connected, if your poor your more likely to be undernourished so you've got more health issues along side which your more likely to steal food and therefore crime will rise. Can't see further than their nose. It's the same as cutting foreign aid not realising that helping to keep countries stable reduces the numbers of refugees, helping with vaccinations helps keep diseases away from Britain. But no it's always about me, me, me with them. The question you have to ask is why were they poor in the first place? Why do they struggle to find a job? Not everyone is born into wealth. Not everyone is born into a loving family. They might have learning difficulties. They might have been abused. All sorts of reasons can render someone poor, inequality is so backed in to British society the main reason is because your parents were poor." You don't have to be born into wealth to find a job. The country has so much demand for certain jobs that they are hiring hundreds of thousands of people from the other countries. Not many of the jobs even need qualifications. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" NHS has played out well, no one has to worry about being ill in the UK. I personally know of two families who went back to India because someone in their families had chronic illnesses. NHS was dogshit and they didn't get proper treatment here. America, well good luck if you've got no insurance. That's the country you want? America does have government healthcare." Aren't they lucky they had that choice!! And no America doesn't, it has Medicaid for the over 65 and Medicare for the very poorest. But it's nothing like the NHS | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They don't seem to understand that everything is connected, if your poor your more likely to be undernourished so you've got more health issues along side which your more likely to steal food and therefore crime will rise. Can't see further than their nose. It's the same as cutting foreign aid not realising that helping to keep countries stable reduces the numbers of refugees, helping with vaccinations helps keep diseases away from Britain. But no it's always about me, me, me with them. The question you have to ask is why were they poor in the first place? Why do they struggle to find a job? This sounds dangerously like "poor people only have themselves to blame". You understand that we're not all dealt the same hand in life, right? That the Eton educated trust fund kids are not starting from the same place as the sink estate kids with a single parent." No, that's not what I implied. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They don't seem to understand that everything is connected, if your poor your more likely to be undernourished so you've got more health issues along side which your more likely to steal food and therefore crime will rise. Can't see further than their nose. It's the same as cutting foreign aid not realising that helping to keep countries stable reduces the numbers of refugees, helping with vaccinations helps keep diseases away from Britain. But no it's always about me, me, me with them. The question you have to ask is why were they poor in the first place? Why do they struggle to find a job? This sounds dangerously like "poor people only have themselves to blame". You understand that we're not all dealt the same hand in life, right? That the Eton educated trust fund kids are not starting from the same place as the sink estate kids with a single parent. No, that's not what I implied." That's exactly what you implied | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" NHS has played out well, no one has to worry about being ill in the UK. I personally know of two families who went back to India because someone in their families had chronic illnesses. NHS was dogshit and they didn't get proper treatment here. America, well good luck if you've got no insurance. That's the country you want? America does have government healthcare. Aren't they lucky they had that choice!! " Yes, they were. People who can't do that are screwed because they are stuck with NHS. " And no America doesn't, it has Medicaid for the over 65 and Medicare for the very poorest. But it's nothing like the NHS " Well you said "Good luck if you got no insurance". You do have options if you have no insurance. Having said that both in the UK and the US, healthcare systems became bad because of it's insane regulations. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They don't seem to understand that everything is connected, if your poor your more likely to be undernourished so you've got more health issues along side which your more likely to steal food and therefore crime will rise. Can't see further than their nose. It's the same as cutting foreign aid not realising that helping to keep countries stable reduces the numbers of refugees, helping with vaccinations helps keep diseases away from Britain. But no it's always about me, me, me with them. The question you have to ask is why were they poor in the first place? Why do they struggle to find a job? This sounds dangerously like "poor people only have themselves to blame". You understand that we're not all dealt the same hand in life, right? That the Eton educated trust fund kids are not starting from the same place as the sink estate kids with a single parent. No, that's not what I implied. That's exactly what you implied " Nope. If you care to know, have some humility to ask for details instead of reaching some lame conclusions like these. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They'd be the first to complain about the homelessness and crime if his world view was once again enacted. How is the homelessness and crime situation in the UK now? ." The homelessness & crime situation certainly isn’t ideal but I’d be willing to wager if we did what you advocated it certainly wouldn’t be improving… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Chronic underfunding over the past 16 years. When Gordon Brown left office the satisfaction rates with the NHS was the best it ever was. Then.....George Osbourne and his cuts. Everything in the UK is terrible due to that government and cuts. " Yeah. Just a little bit more taxes and you will make it all work, am I right? And of course those taxes must come from other people, not your own pockets. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" NHS has played out well, no one has to worry about being ill in the UK. I personally know of two families who went back to India because someone in their families had chronic illnesses. NHS was dogshit and they didn't get proper treatment here. America, well good luck if you've got no insurance. That's the country you want? America does have government healthcare. Aren't they lucky they had that choice!! Yes, they were. People who can't do that are screwed because they are stuck with NHS. And no America doesn't, it has Medicaid for the over 65 and Medicare for the very poorest. But it's nothing like the NHS Well you said "Good luck if you got no insurance". You do have options if you have no insurance. Having said that both in the UK and the US, healthcare systems became bad because of it's insane regulations." Nobody is "stuck with the NHS" - you can always self fund and go private. If you don't have the money, then ask yourself why you don't. Maybe you should have made better life choices. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They don't seem to understand that everything is connected, if your poor your more likely to be undernourished so you've got more health issues along side which your more likely to steal food and therefore crime will rise. Can't see further than their nose. It's the same as cutting foreign aid not realising that helping to keep countries stable reduces the numbers of refugees, helping with vaccinations helps keep diseases away from Britain. But no it's always about me, me, me with them. The question you have to ask is why were they poor in the first place? Why do they struggle to find a job? This sounds dangerously like "poor people only have themselves to blame". You understand that we're not all dealt the same hand in life, right? That the Eton educated trust fund kids are not starting from the same place as the sink estate kids with a single parent. No, that's not what I implied. That's exactly what you implied Nope. If you care to know, have some humility to ask for details instead of reaching some lame conclusions like these." We can read all your other comments. You clearly believe that there are the deserving poor and you you think rich people deserve to be bowed to. Despite most rich people being born to already very rich people, not anything they've done | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" NHS has played out well, no one has to worry about being ill in the UK. I personally know of two families who went back to India because someone in their families had chronic illnesses. NHS was dogshit and they didn't get proper treatment here. America, well good luck if you've got no insurance. That's the country you want? America does have government healthcare. Aren't they lucky they had that choice!! Yes, they were. People who can't do that are screwed because they are stuck with NHS. And no America doesn't, it has Medicaid for the over 65 and Medicare for the very poorest. But it's nothing like the NHS Well you said "Good luck if you got no insurance". You do have options if you have no insurance. Having said that both in the UK and the US, healthcare systems became bad because of it's insane regulations. Nobody is "stuck with the NHS" - you can always self fund and go private. If you don't have the money, then ask yourself why you don't. Maybe you should have made better life choices." And private healthcare here is too expensive, primarily because of NHS being a monopoly and the insane regulatory framework. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" NHS has played out well, no one has to worry about being ill in the UK. I personally know of two families who went back to India because someone in their families had chronic illnesses. NHS was dogshit and they didn't get proper treatment here. America, well good luck if you've got no insurance. That's the country you want? America does have government healthcare. Aren't they lucky they had that choice!! Yes, they were. People who can't do that are screwed because they are stuck with NHS. And no America doesn't, it has Medicaid for the over 65 and Medicare for the very poorest. But it's nothing like the NHS Well you said "Good luck if you got no insurance". You do have options if you have no insurance. Having said that both in the UK and the US, healthcare systems became bad because of it's insane regulations. Nobody is "stuck with the NHS" - you can always self fund and go private. If you don't have the money, then ask yourself why you don't. Maybe you should have made better life choices. And private healthcare here is too expensive, primarily because of NHS being a monopoly and the insane regulatory framework. " Lol. Wouldn't know I don't need private healthcare we have the NHS. And wouldn't be able to afford it. So once again your talking from a position of great privilege | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Despite most rich people being born to already very rich people, not anything they've done " Yep. Or they have made it off the back of living in a society that provides education, healthcare, law and order, security etc etc. What's more, depending on somebody’s age, you either benefitted from a larger state providing better services to the population or you made it off the back of the state selling public assets into private ownership at discounted rates (privatisation) basically giving away money to those who already had enough money to buy shares in these public assets. These conditions no longer exist ans tgeycwere a one off and unless things change the only way your kids will be able to get on is by you passing on your accumulated wealth. This is fundamentally unfair on those kids whose parents haven't managed to accumulate such wealth. That's why we have taxes, specifically inheritance tax. You might think you're doing them a favour, but if everyone did that then the society in which their kids and grandkids would live would be even more shit than it is now. The best thing we can do for the next generation is to pass on a well functioning, ordered and properly functioning country, and that requires well run and properly funded public services. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We can read all your other comments. You clearly believe that there are the deserving poor and you you think rich people deserve to be bowed to. " Where did I ever say that poor people are deserving of what they got? Again, developing some humility will help. Most people are poor in the UK because of the government, its socialist policies and insane regulations. " Despite most rich people being born to already very rich people, not anything they've done " Not true. Take the top 10 richest people two decades back and now. How many of them have continued from the same family? I personally believe that the three generation curse is real. Except for some odd cases, wealthy families end up losing their wealth after a few generations because eventually one generation becomes too spoilt to understand that even maintaining their wealth needs hard work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Switzerland, Netherlands and Singapore are examples of countries with great, non-state, healthcare. The US is a poor example, since its issues are political more than anything else. Germany is an example of employer funded insurance premiums that actually works well. But, for some reason, people always point to the US. Nobody here wants to be like there." Exactly! I don't mind some state healthcare that exists only for the most expensive treatments. But NHS has basically monopolised the whole thing and starved private healthcare for good. And now the NHS has become terrible and people don't have a good private healthcare system to fall back to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" NHS has played out well, no one has to worry about being ill in the UK. I personally know of two families who went back to India because someone in their families had chronic illnesses. NHS was dogshit and they didn't get proper treatment here. America, well good luck if you've got no insurance. That's the country you want? America does have government healthcare. Aren't they lucky they had that choice!! Yes, they were. People who can't do that are screwed because they are stuck with NHS. And no America doesn't, it has Medicaid for the over 65 and Medicare for the very poorest. But it's nothing like the NHS Well you said "Good luck if you got no insurance". You do have options if you have no insurance. Having said that both in the UK and the US, healthcare systems became bad because of it's insane regulations. Nobody is "stuck with the NHS" - you can always self fund and go private. If you don't have the money, then ask yourself why you don't. Maybe you should have made better life choices. And private healthcare here is too expensive, primarily because of NHS being a monopoly and the insane regulatory framework. " If you think that the UK is too expensive because of the NHS, explain why a self funded stay in a US hospital will cost you $2,300 a night | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We can read all your other comments. You clearly believe that there are the deserving poor and you you think rich people deserve to be bowed to. Where did I ever say that poor people are deserving of what they got? Again, developing some humility will help. Most people are poor in the UK because of the government, its socialist policies and insane regulations. Despite most rich people being born to already very rich people, not anything they've done Not true. Take the top 10 richest people two decades back and now. How many of them have continued from the same family? I personally believe that the three generation curse is real. Except for some odd cases, wealthy families end up losing their wealth after a few generations because eventually one generation becomes too spoilt to understand that even maintaining their wealth needs hard work. " It drips from every message you type. It really is true. Britain has inequality baked into it. It's why the royal family sit on top then work your way down. The duke of Westminster etc etc there's hundreds of them all over the UK. All mix in the same circles. All marry eachother, go to privileged schools, own newspapers to make people like you hate the people who are already poor | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" NHS has played out well, no one has to worry about being ill in the UK. I personally know of two families who went back to India because someone in their families had chronic illnesses. NHS was dogshit and they didn't get proper treatment here. America, well good luck if you've got no insurance. That's the country you want? America does have government healthcare. Aren't they lucky they had that choice!! Yes, they were. People who can't do that are screwed because they are stuck with NHS. And no America doesn't, it has Medicaid for the over 65 and Medicare for the very poorest. But it's nothing like the NHS Well you said "Good luck if you got no insurance". You do have options if you have no insurance. Having said that both in the UK and the US, healthcare systems became bad because of it's insane regulations. Nobody is "stuck with the NHS" - you can always self fund and go private. If you don't have the money, then ask yourself why you don't. Maybe you should have made better life choices. And private healthcare here is too expensive, primarily because of NHS being a monopoly and the insane regulatory framework. If you think that the UK is too expensive because of the NHS, explain why a self funded stay in a US hospital will cost you $2,300 a night " US and UK have different types of problems with healthcare. The US problem is primarily driven by regulatory costs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you think that the UK is too expensive because of the NHS, explain why a self funded stay in a US hospital will cost you $2,300 a night " Corruption and lobbying. Political problems. Check out the countries listed above, who primarily rely on private health. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It drips from every message you type. " Only in your dreams. I care about some causes and I personally help out those causes. I don't need validation from armchair socialists on the internet who pretend like they care but wouldn't open their own wallets for any of these causes. " It really is true. Britain has inequality baked into it. It's why the royal family sit on top then work your way down. " 🤣 A "royal family" is the most anti-capitalistic thing ever. You want to blame that on capitalism. " The duke of Westminster etc etc there's hundreds of them all over the UK. All mix in the same circles. All marry eachother, go to privileged schools, own newspapers to make people like you hate the people who are already poor " Show me how they are making their money. I will show you how the government regulations are the reason why they are able yo let do this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" NHS has played out well, no one has to worry about being ill in the UK. I personally know of two families who went back to India because someone in their families had chronic illnesses. NHS was dogshit and they didn't get proper treatment here. America, well good luck if you've got no insurance. That's the country you want? America does have government healthcare. Aren't they lucky they had that choice!! Yes, they were. People who can't do that are screwed because they are stuck with NHS. And no America doesn't, it has Medicaid for the over 65 and Medicare for the very poorest. But it's nothing like the NHS Well you said "Good luck if you got no insurance". You do have options if you have no insurance. Having said that both in the UK and the US, healthcare systems became bad because of it's insane regulations. Nobody is "stuck with the NHS" - you can always self fund and go private. If you don't have the money, then ask yourself why you don't. Maybe you should have made better life choices. And private healthcare here is too expensive, primarily because of NHS being a monopoly and the insane regulatory framework. If you think that the UK is too expensive because of the NHS, explain why a self funded stay in a US hospital will cost you $2,300 a night US and UK have different types of problems with healthcare. The US problem is primarily driven by regulatory costs." Regulations are there to keep us safe. How those people from Grenfell? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It really is true. Britain has inequality baked into it." Why do so many immigrants do so well, arguably better than many British born people? Perhaps the liberation need in within people's heads. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It drips from every message you type. Only in your dreams. I care about some causes and I personally help out those causes. I don't need validation from armchair socialists on the internet who pretend like they care but wouldn't open their own wallets for any of these causes. It really is true. Britain has inequality baked into it. It's why the royal family sit on top then work your way down. 🤣 A "royal family" is the most anti-capitalistic thing ever. You want to blame that on capitalism. The duke of Westminster etc etc there's hundreds of them all over the UK. All mix in the same circles. All marry eachother, go to privileged schools, own newspapers to make people like you hate the people who are already poor Show me how they are making their money. I will show you how the government regulations are the reason why they are able yo let do this." I didn't say the royal family have anything to do with capitalism per se, but it's a system that teaches you to know your place. But they've had the money to make more money via capitalism and then that further entrenches inequality | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" NHS has played out well, no one has to worry about being ill in the UK. I personally know of two families who went back to India because someone in their families had chronic illnesses. NHS was dogshit and they didn't get proper treatment here. America, well good luck if you've got no insurance. That's the country you want? America does have government healthcare. Aren't they lucky they had that choice!! Yes, they were. People who can't do that are screwed because they are stuck with NHS. And no America doesn't, it has Medicaid for the over 65 and Medicare for the very poorest. But it's nothing like the NHS Well you said "Good luck if you got no insurance". You do have options if you have no insurance. Having said that both in the UK and the US, healthcare systems became bad because of it's insane regulations. Nobody is "stuck with the NHS" - you can always self fund and go private. If you don't have the money, then ask yourself why you don't. Maybe you should have made better life choices. And private healthcare here is too expensive, primarily because of NHS being a monopoly and the insane regulatory framework. If you think that the UK is too expensive because of the NHS, explain why a self funded stay in a US hospital will cost you $2,300 a night US and UK have different types of problems with healthcare. The US problem is primarily driven by regulatory costs. Regulations are there to keep us safe. How those people from Grenfell?" There are good regulations, there are bad regulations, there are regulations which were created by politicians just so that certain monopolies can be protected, thanks to lobbying. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Surprised we haven’t had the ‘government waste’ line thrown out yet. There's a reason why Elon Musk's DOGE achieved nothing much above feck all and why every political party when it comes round to manifesto time and wants to chuck some red meat out they know will never happen will be funded by "tackling waste, fraud and abuse" because it's never anywhere near as much or as easy to find as it's made out to be." That's because no governments want to take a decision that would cause temporary pain to people. Last month, Argentina reached its lowest poverty levels since 2018. What do you say about that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It drips from every message you type. Only in your dreams. I care about some causes and I personally help out those causes. I don't need validation from armchair socialists on the internet who pretend like they care but wouldn't open their own wallets for any of these causes. It really is true. Britain has inequality baked into it. It's why the royal family sit on top then work your way down. 🤣 A "royal family" is the most anti-capitalistic thing ever. You want to blame that on capitalism. The duke of Westminster etc etc there's hundreds of them all over the UK. All mix in the same circles. All marry eachother, go to privileged schools, own newspapers to make people like you hate the people who are already poor Show me how they are making their money. I will show you how the government regulations are the reason why they are able yo let do this. I didn't say the royal family have anything to do with capitalism per se, but it's a system that teaches you to know your place. But they've had the money to make more money via capitalism and then that further entrenches inequality " They are able to continue doing it because the government protects them. This is the first time I have seen someone blaming the royal family's wealth on capitalism 🤣 Look at the number of countries that have royal families and let me know if there is any correlation between their wealth and capitalism. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Surprised we haven’t had the ‘government waste’ line thrown out yet. There's a reason why Elon Musk's DOGE achieved nothing much above feck all and why every political party when it comes round to manifesto time and wants to chuck some red meat out they know will never happen will be funded by "tackling waste, fraud and abuse" because it's never anywhere near as much or as easy to find as it's made out to be. That's because no governments want to take a decision that would cause temporary pain to people. Last month, Argentina reached its lowest poverty levels since 2018. What do you say about that? " Argentina? “Public discontent with Argentine President Javier Milei is rising as inflation accelerates again and many people say they have yet to feel the benefits of the government's economic reforms.” “…with broad sectors of society saying their incomes are insufficient and their quality of life has not improved”. (April 15, 2026). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you think that the UK is too expensive because of the NHS, explain why a self funded stay in a US hospital will cost you $2,300 a night Corruption and lobbying. Political problems. Check out the countries listed above, who primarily rely on private health." Switzerland may be cheaper than the US, but not by much. It spends the same percentage of GDP as the US does and per-person it ranks #3 as the most expensive healthcare globally. Is that because of corruption and lobbying too? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It drips from every message you type. Only in your dreams. I care about some causes and I personally help out those causes. I don't need validation from armchair socialists on the internet who pretend like they care but wouldn't open their own wallets for any of these causes. It really is true. Britain has inequality baked into it. It's why the royal family sit on top then work your way down. 🤣 A "royal family" is the most anti-capitalistic thing ever. You want to blame that on capitalism. The duke of Westminster etc etc there's hundreds of them all over the UK. All mix in the same circles. All marry eachother, go to privileged schools, own newspapers to make people like you hate the people who are already poor Show me how they are making their money. I will show you how the government regulations are the reason why they are able yo let do this. I didn't say the royal family have anything to do with capitalism per se, but it's a system that teaches you to know your place. But they've had the money to make more money via capitalism and then that further entrenches inequality They are able to continue doing it because the government protects them. This is the first time I have seen someone blaming the royal family's wealth on capitalism 🤣 Look at the number of countries that have royal families and let me know if there is any correlation between their wealth and capitalism." Ok so investing in the east Indian company or the royal African company wasn't a form of capitalism! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you think that the UK is too expensive because of the NHS, explain why a self funded stay in a US hospital will cost you $2,300 a night Corruption and lobbying. Political problems. Check out the countries listed above, who primarily rely on private health. Switzerland may be cheaper than the US, but not by much. It spends the same percentage of GDP as the US does and per-person it ranks #3 as the most expensive healthcare globally. Is that because of corruption and lobbying too?" Those elements are taken out of context. Look at outcomes, quality and income levels. It's highly regarded, and best-in-class healthcare costs real money. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Surprised we haven’t had the ‘government waste’ line thrown out yet. There's a reason why Elon Musk's DOGE achieved nothing much above feck all and why every political party when it comes round to manifesto time and wants to chuck some red meat out they know will never happen will be funded by "tackling waste, fraud and abuse" because it's never anywhere near as much or as easy to find as it's made out to be. That's because no governments want to take a decision that would cause temporary pain to people. Last month, Argentina reached its lowest poverty levels since 2018. What do you say about that? Argentina? “Public discontent with Argentine President Javier Milei is rising as inflation accelerates again and many people say they have yet to feel the benefits of the government's economic reforms.” “…with broad sectors of society saying their incomes are insufficient and their quality of life has not improved”. (April 15, 2026). " It's easy to find a random article about "public discontent" published by partisan newspaper. Poverty levels have dropped. As socialists who talk all the time about how you all care about poverty, definitely poverty levels dropping to a 7 years low should make you all happy right? But no, because it was done through policies that did not involve increasing taxes. And monthly inflation is on track for a 9 years low. Again, something that would make people who genuinely care about the poor happy. Are you happy? Argentina is a blue print for what happens when you keep expanding on public services. Eventually the whole thing will break down. You will need a Milei to fix things. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It drips from every message you type. Only in your dreams. I care about some causes and I personally help out those causes. I don't need validation from armchair socialists on the internet who pretend like they care but wouldn't open their own wallets for any of these causes. It really is true. Britain has inequality baked into it. It's why the royal family sit on top then work your way down. 🤣 A "royal family" is the most anti-capitalistic thing ever. You want to blame that on capitalism. The duke of Westminster etc etc there's hundreds of them all over the UK. All mix in the same circles. All marry eachother, go to privileged schools, own newspapers to make people like you hate the people who are already poor Show me how they are making their money. I will show you how the government regulations are the reason why they are able yo let do this. I didn't say the royal family have anything to do with capitalism per se, but it's a system that teaches you to know your place. But they've had the money to make more money via capitalism and then that further entrenches inequality They are able to continue doing it because the government protects them. This is the first time I have seen someone blaming the royal family's wealth on capitalism 🤣 Look at the number of countries that have royal families and let me know if there is any correlation between their wealth and capitalism. Ok so investing in the east Indian company or the royal African company wasn't a form of capitalism!" Looks like you don't even know what capitalism is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Surprised we haven’t had the ‘government waste’ line thrown out yet. There's a reason why Elon Musk's DOGE achieved nothing much above feck all and why every political party when it comes round to manifesto time and wants to chuck some red meat out they know will never happen will be funded by "tackling waste, fraud and abuse" because it's never anywhere near as much or as easy to find as it's made out to be." I was brought onto a government IT project just over a decade ago to give it a health check. The project had easily burned through £100m and was on course to double that. It was woefully late. The solution was simple. Stop, rebase it, focus on the actual problem to be solved and sack the plethora of consultants and civil servants who were out if their depth with no domain or technical knowledge. I proposed an approach that would have required a small team and £5-10m max and would have met the specified requirements. I was instantly shut down. The only person who lost their contract was me. Make of that what you will. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Surprised we haven’t had the ‘government waste’ line thrown out yet. There's a reason why Elon Musk's DOGE achieved nothing much above feck all and why every political party when it comes round to manifesto time and wants to chuck some red meat out they know will never happen will be funded by "tackling waste, fraud and abuse" because it's never anywhere near as much or as easy to find as it's made out to be. I was brought onto a government IT project just over a decade ago to give it a health check. The project had easily burned through £100m and was on course to double that. It was woefully late. The solution was simple. Stop, rebase it, focus on the actual problem to be solved and sack the plethora of consultants and civil servants who were out if their depth with no domain or technical knowledge. I proposed an approach that would have required a small team and £5-10m max and would have met the specified requirements. I was instantly shut down. The only person who lost their contract was me. Make of that what you will." Almost identical stories here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Surprised we haven’t had the ‘government waste’ line thrown out yet. There's a reason why Elon Musk's DOGE achieved nothing much above feck all and why every political party when it comes round to manifesto time and wants to chuck some red meat out they know will never happen will be funded by "tackling waste, fraud and abuse" because it's never anywhere near as much or as easy to find as it's made out to be. That's because no governments want to take a decision that would cause temporary pain to people. Last month, Argentina reached its lowest poverty levels since 2018. What do you say about that? Argentina? “Public discontent with Argentine President Javier Milei is rising as inflation accelerates again and many people say they have yet to feel the benefits of the government's economic reforms.” “…with broad sectors of society saying their incomes are insufficient and their quality of life has not improved”. (April 15, 2026). It's easy to find a random article about "public discontent" published by partisan newspaper. Poverty levels have dropped. As socialists who talk all the time about how you all care about poverty, definitely poverty levels dropping to a 7 years low should make you all happy right? But no, because it was done through policies that did not involve increasing taxes. And monthly inflation is on track for a 9 years low. Again, something that would make people who genuinely care about the poor happy. Are you happy? Argentina is a blue print for what happens when you keep expanding on public services. Eventually the whole thing will break down. You will need a Milei to fix things." Admittedly, I don’t know enough about Argentine politics to compare with what went before, but the impression would be that they were a bit of a South American basket case? In which case, if there’s OBVIOUS government largesse, then yes, you have scope to cut the state. My point is, in countries where that isn’t the case, the ‘waste’ problem can be overstated somewhat for electoral gains. And unlike Argentina, the UK isn’t running inflation in the hundreds of % is it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Surprised we haven’t had the ‘government waste’ line thrown out yet. There's a reason why Elon Musk's DOGE achieved nothing much above feck all and why every political party when it comes round to manifesto time and wants to chuck some red meat out they know will never happen will be funded by "tackling waste, fraud and abuse" because it's never anywhere near as much or as easy to find as it's made out to be. That's because no governments want to take a decision that would cause temporary pain to people. Last month, Argentina reached its lowest poverty levels since 2018. What do you say about that? Argentina? “Public discontent with Argentine President Javier Milei is rising as inflation accelerates again and many people say they have yet to feel the benefits of the government's economic reforms.” “…with broad sectors of society saying their incomes are insufficient and their quality of life has not improved”. (April 15, 2026). It's easy to find a random article about "public discontent" published by partisan newspaper. Poverty levels have dropped. As socialists who talk all the time about how you all care about poverty, definitely poverty levels dropping to a 7 years low should make you all happy right? But no, because it was done through policies that did not involve increasing taxes. And monthly inflation is on track for a 9 years low. Again, something that would make people who genuinely care about the poor happy. Are you happy? Argentina is a blue print for what happens when you keep expanding on public services. Eventually the whole thing will break down. You will need a Milei to fix things. Admittedly, I don’t know enough about Argentine politics to compare with what went before, but the impression would be that they were a bit of a South American basket case? In which case, if there’s OBVIOUS government largesse, then yes, you have scope to cut the state. My point is, in countries where that isn’t the case, the ‘waste’ problem can be overstated somewhat for electoral gains. And unlike Argentina, the UK isn’t running inflation in the hundreds of % is it." That's what they would have said in Argentina before hyperinflation happened. Look at UK's debts in comparison to GDP. It isn't as bad as Argentina yet. But if we keep looking to increase the government presence in everything, it won't take long to reach a similar situation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you think that the UK is too expensive because of the NHS, explain why a self funded stay in a US hospital will cost you $2,300 a night Corruption and lobbying. Political problems. Check out the countries listed above, who primarily rely on private health. Switzerland may be cheaper than the US, but not by much. It spends the same percentage of GDP as the US does and per-person it ranks #3 as the most expensive healthcare globally. Is that because of corruption and lobbying too? Those elements are taken out of context. Look at outcomes, quality and income levels. It's highly regarded, and best-in-class healthcare costs real money." "Out of context" doesn't explain why it's so expensive. Are you now less concerned with the price of things and more concerned with value for money? Because if so, you ought to be the biggest NHS cheerleader here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you think that the UK is too expensive because of the NHS, explain why a self funded stay in a US hospital will cost you $2,300 a night Corruption and lobbying. Political problems. Check out the countries listed above, who primarily rely on private health. Switzerland may be cheaper than the US, but not by much. It spends the same percentage of GDP as the US does and per-person it ranks #3 as the most expensive healthcare globally. Is that because of corruption and lobbying too? Those elements are taken out of context. Look at outcomes, quality and income levels. It's highly regarded, and best-in-class healthcare costs real money. "Out of context" doesn't explain why it's so expensive. Are you now less concerned with the price of things and more concerned with value for money? Because if so, you ought to be the biggest NHS cheerleader here." Not sure how you reach that conclusion. Looks like NHS is more expensive but has less quality of outcome. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you think that the UK is too expensive because of the NHS, explain why a self funded stay in a US hospital will cost you $2,300 a night Corruption and lobbying. Political problems. Check out the countries listed above, who primarily rely on private health. Switzerland may be cheaper than the US, but not by much. It spends the same percentage of GDP as the US does and per-person it ranks #3 as the most expensive healthcare globally. Is that because of corruption and lobbying too? Those elements are taken out of context. Look at outcomes, quality and income levels. It's highly regarded, and best-in-class healthcare costs real money. "Out of context" doesn't explain why it's so expensive. Are you now less concerned with the price of things and more concerned with value for money? Because if so, you ought to be the biggest NHS cheerleader here. Not sure how you reach that conclusion. Looks like NHS is more expensive but has less quality of outcome." . Is that based on any data you'd like to share or is it just fuzzy feels? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you think that the UK is too expensive because of the NHS, explain why a self funded stay in a US hospital will cost you $2,300 a night Corruption and lobbying. Political problems. Check out the countries listed above, who primarily rely on private health. Switzerland may be cheaper than the US, but not by much. It spends the same percentage of GDP as the US does and per-person it ranks #3 as the most expensive healthcare globally. Is that because of corruption and lobbying too? Those elements are taken out of context. Look at outcomes, quality and income levels. It's highly regarded, and best-in-class healthcare costs real money. "Out of context" doesn't explain why it's so expensive. Are you now less concerned with the price of things and more concerned with value for money? Because if so, you ought to be the biggest NHS cheerleader here." EVERYTHING in Switzerland is much, much more expensive. Do a quick Google search on minimum wage and cost of living. Everyone earns much more over there. So comparing raw costs does nothing. Outcomes are that people are getting arguably best-in-world treatment with low waiting times, maximum choice and at a *relative* fraction of the cost as, say, the US, for similar treatment. You need to look at the whole picture. Having used the Swiss system, we can attest that it's fast, accessible and excellent. Although the pharmacies do push their homeopathic remedies a bit much. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you think that the UK is too expensive because of the NHS, explain why a self funded stay in a US hospital will cost you $2,300 a night Corruption and lobbying. Political problems. Check out the countries listed above, who primarily rely on private health. Switzerland may be cheaper than the US, but not by much. It spends the same percentage of GDP as the US does and per-person it ranks #3 as the most expensive healthcare globally. Is that because of corruption and lobbying too? Those elements are taken out of context. Look at outcomes, quality and income levels. It's highly regarded, and best-in-class healthcare costs real money. "Out of context" doesn't explain why it's so expensive. Are you now less concerned with the price of things and more concerned with value for money? Because if so, you ought to be the biggest NHS cheerleader here. Not sure how you reach that conclusion. Looks like NHS is more expensive but has less quality of outcome.. Is that based on any data you'd like to share or is it just fuzzy feels?" You specifically took the case of Switzerland, which admittedly has higher cost than UK but better outcomes and satisfaction. Singapore and Netherlands on the other hand has lower cost than the UK while achieving better outcomes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you think that the UK is too expensive because of the NHS, explain why a self funded stay in a US hospital will cost you $2,300 a night Corruption and lobbying. Political problems. Check out the countries listed above, who primarily rely on private health. Switzerland may be cheaper than the US, but not by much. It spends the same percentage of GDP as the US does and per-person it ranks #3 as the most expensive healthcare globally. Is that because of corruption and lobbying too? Those elements are taken out of context. Look at outcomes, quality and income levels. It's highly regarded, and best-in-class healthcare costs real money. "Out of context" doesn't explain why it's so expensive. Are you now less concerned with the price of things and more concerned with value for money? Because if so, you ought to be the biggest NHS cheerleader here. EVERYTHING in Switzerland is much, much more expensive. Do a quick Google search on minimum wage and cost of living. Everyone earns much more over there. So comparing raw costs does nothing. Outcomes are that people are getting arguably best-in-world treatment with low waiting times, maximum choice and at a *relative* fraction of the cost as, say, the US, for similar treatment. You need to look at the whole picture. Having used the Swiss system, we can attest that it's fast, accessible and excellent. Although the pharmacies do push their homeopathic remedies a bit much." But we've already agreed that if money is no object, then you can have the best healthcare in the world. Now you're pivoting towards a "value for money" argument, which is a lot more tenuous. Clinical outcomes of treatments by the Swiss and UK healthcare systems are broadly the same. The major difference is far shorter wait times and greater choice in Switzerland. But the average Swiss pays almost double what a UK resident does for healthcare (Switzerland may be pricey for consumer goods but it ain't twice the price of the UK). If that 2X price tag doesn't reflect to 2X healthcare, then the value for money line seems a bit wobbly. And thats before we get into the difference in equity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you think that the UK is too expensive because of the NHS, explain why a self funded stay in a US hospital will cost you $2,300 a night Corruption and lobbying. Political problems. Check out the countries listed above, who primarily rely on private health. Switzerland may be cheaper than the US, but not by much. It spends the same percentage of GDP as the US does and per-person it ranks #3 as the most expensive healthcare globally. Is that because of corruption and lobbying too? Those elements are taken out of context. Look at outcomes, quality and income levels. It's highly regarded, and best-in-class healthcare costs real money. "Out of context" doesn't explain why it's so expensive. Are you now less concerned with the price of things and more concerned with value for money? Because if so, you ought to be the biggest NHS cheerleader here. Not sure how you reach that conclusion. Looks like NHS is more expensive but has less quality of outcome.. Is that based on any data you'd like to share or is it just fuzzy feels? You specifically took the case of Switzerland, which admittedly has higher cost than UK but better outcomes and satisfaction. Singapore and Netherlands on the other hand has lower cost than the UK while achieving better outcomes." Where do you get the idea that Netherlands has lower cost? It spends the same % of GDP as the UK | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you think that the UK is too expensive because of the NHS, explain why a self funded stay in a US hospital will cost you $2,300 a night Corruption and lobbying. Political problems. Check out the countries listed above, who primarily rely on private health. Switzerland may be cheaper than the US, but not by much. It spends the same percentage of GDP as the US does and per-person it ranks #3 as the most expensive healthcare globally. Is that because of corruption and lobbying too? Those elements are taken out of context. Look at outcomes, quality and income levels. It's highly regarded, and best-in-class healthcare costs real money. "Out of context" doesn't explain why it's so expensive. Are you now less concerned with the price of things and more concerned with value for money? Because if so, you ought to be the biggest NHS cheerleader here. Not sure how you reach that conclusion. Looks like NHS is more expensive but has less quality of outcome.. Is that based on any data you'd like to share or is it just fuzzy feels? You specifically took the case of Switzerland, which admittedly has higher cost than UK but better outcomes and satisfaction. Singapore and Netherlands on the other hand has lower cost than the UK while achieving better outcomes. Where do you get the idea that Netherlands has lower cost? It spends the same % of GDP as the UK" I was looking at amount spent per person. But I admit I looked at the wrong data. Looks like Netherlands spends 25% higher. But again, the mortality rates are better in Netherlands and they have shorter wait times too. Plus healthcare workers receive better pay. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But we've already agreed that if money is no object, then you can have the best healthcare in the world." Huh? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...But the average Swiss pays almost double what a UK resident does for healthcare (Switzerland may be pricey for consumer goods but it ain't twice the price of the UK). If that 2X price tag doesn't reflect to 2X healthcare, then the value for money line seems a bit wobbly." Average incomes in Switzerland (95220) are about twice those in the UK (49470) (2024 figures). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...But the average Swiss pays almost double what a UK resident does for healthcare (Switzerland may be pricey for consumer goods but it ain't twice the price of the UK). If that 2X price tag doesn't reflect to 2X healthcare, then the value for money line seems a bit wobbly. Average incomes in Switzerland (95220) are about twice those in the UK (49470) (2024 figures). " Is your argument that the cost of a Swiss style system would be half as much if introduced into the UK? If so, I'd like to see your workings Or is it that not having 2X the healthcare for 2X the cost doesn't matter if you have a higher income? "Average income" is also not especially useful when you have a very wide spread of real incomes but a very narrow spread of (mandated) healthcare plans. Someone in the bottom 10% will feel that 2X price tag a lot more keenly than someone in the top 10%, agreed? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you think that the UK is too expensive because of the NHS, explain why a self funded stay in a US hospital will cost you $2,300 a night Corruption and lobbying. Political problems. Check out the countries listed above, who primarily rely on private health. Switzerland may be cheaper than the US, but not by much. It spends the same percentage of GDP as the US does and per-person it ranks #3 as the most expensive healthcare globally. Is that because of corruption and lobbying too? Those elements are taken out of context. Look at outcomes, quality and income levels. It's highly regarded, and best-in-class healthcare costs real money. "Out of context" doesn't explain why it's so expensive. Are you now less concerned with the price of things and more concerned with value for money? Because if so, you ought to be the biggest NHS cheerleader here. Not sure how you reach that conclusion. Looks like NHS is more expensive but has less quality of outcome.. Is that based on any data you'd like to share or is it just fuzzy feels? You specifically took the case of Switzerland, which admittedly has higher cost than UK but better outcomes and satisfaction. Singapore and Netherlands on the other hand has lower cost than the UK while achieving better outcomes. Where do you get the idea that Netherlands has lower cost? It spends the same % of GDP as the UK I was looking at amount spent per person. But I admit I looked at the wrong data. Looks like Netherlands spends 25% higher. But again, the mortality rates are better in Netherlands and they have shorter wait times too. Plus healthcare workers receive better pay." There are differences in mortality rates, but they are modest, not transformative. I'm also all for giving healthcare workers better pay. Do you think that would make the tax burden bigger or smaller? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is your argument that the cost of a Swiss style system would be half as much if introduced into the UK? If so, I'd like to see your workings " The only argument being made is that there are successful private models out there. " Or is it that not having 2X the healthcare for 2X the cost doesn't matter if you have a higher income? "Average income" is also not especially useful when you have a very wide spread of real incomes but a very narrow spread of (mandated) healthcare plans. Someone in the bottom 10% will feel that 2X price tag a lot more keenly than someone in the top 10%, agreed?" Swiss generally have a much, much higher minimum income than the UK (~4000-5000 USD/month and lower taxes). Check out the spread of incomes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The only argument being made is that there are successful private models out there. " But your definition of "successful" doesn't seem to be consistent. How are you measuring success? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Swiss generally have a much, much higher minimum income than the UK (~4000-5000 USD/month and lower taxes). Check out the spread of incomes." I'm not comparing minimums. I'm pointing out that 15-20% of Swiss households earn the same or less than the average UK wage, but are still required to pay 2x what their UK cousins pay in healthcare costs - so talking averages doesn't really mean much for them, does it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The only argument being made is that there are successful private models out there. But your definition of "successful" doesn't seem to be consistent. How are you measuring success?" How do you want to measure it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Where do you get the idea that Netherlands has lower cost? It spends the same % of GDP as the UK I was looking at amount spent per person. But I admit I looked at the wrong data. Looks like Netherlands spends 25% higher. But again, the mortality rates are better in Netherlands and they have shorter wait times too. Plus healthcare workers receive better pay. There are differences in mortality rates, but they are modest, not transformative. " Treatable mortality rate in Netherlands is 59.2. The same for England/Wales is 82. Not really "modest". " I'm also all for giving healthcare workers better pay. Do you think that would make the tax burden bigger or smaller?" It will. But as with the NHS, it will result in little raise for healthcare workers and lot of money wasted in bureaucracy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The only argument being made is that there are successful private models out there. But your definition of "successful" doesn't seem to be consistent. How are you measuring success? How do you want to measure it?" You chose to use the word, not me. Presumably you know what you wrote and what metrics you use. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Swiss generally have a much, much higher minimum income than the UK (~4000-5000 USD/month and lower taxes). Check out the spread of incomes. I'm not comparing minimums. I'm pointing out that 15-20% of Swiss households earn the same or less than the average UK wage, but are still required to pay 2x what their UK cousins pay in healthcare costs - so talking averages doesn't really mean much for them, does it?" Your maths isn't mathing. You really need to consider the overall standard of life, wage environment, total cost of treatment at different life stages... You seem to want to doggedly object to the Swiss system. It's not all about comparison - it's simply a model that works, that isn't fully public. The only rationale for bringing Singapore, Switzerland and Netherlands as examples was to demonstrate that private can work, and work well. If you want to criticise the Swiss model, then great. But first acknowledge that, to Swiss people, it broadly works. Potentially better than the NHS. You can then rip into it as much as you like - nobody is suggesting that we SHOULD adopt that specific model in the UK. Transitioning would be very, very painful. But some lessons of next practice could, potentially, be learnt. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Treatable mortality rate in Netherlands is 59.2. The same for England/Wales is 82. Not really "modest". " Which year are you using for those numbers ??? Source please. Just to be clear - you're OK with paying more in taxes so healthcare professionals can be paid more, yes? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The only argument being made is that there are successful private models out there. But your definition of "successful" doesn't seem to be consistent. How are you measuring success? How do you want to measure it? You chose to use the word, not me. Presumably you know what you wrote and what metrics you use." Fine. Our experience is subjective, having lived an worked in the UK, Switzerland, the US and other places. To us, the Swiss system seemed efficient and highly regarded by the Swiss, in contrast to the UK. But, let's look at some metrics - helpfully found by AI when prompted to compare. Below is from Researchgate: University of Bari Aldo Moro Satisfaction with the Healthcare System in OECD Countries " Satisfaction with the healthcare system in OECD countries in 2022. Satisfaction with the healthcare system in 2022 varies significantly among different countries, highlighting a range of perceptions from excellence to concern. At the top of the ranking is Switzerland with an impressive 92%, followed closely by Belgium with 90% and Luxembourg with 85%. These high satisfaction levels can be attributed to well-funded healthcare systems, universal access to health services, and advanced medical technologies. The Netherlands (83%) and Austria (81%), along with Denmark and Norway, which share the same score, are also among the top, demonstrating their healthcare efficiency. Germany positions slightly lower with 79%, reflecting a robust system that might still face efficiency or access issues preventing even higher satisfaction. The Czech Republic, with 77%, and Japan, with 76%, show high satisfaction, suggesting that despite cultural and structural differences, they manage to provide healthcare that meets the population's expectations. Israel and the United States both stand at 75%, with the latter's result being somewhat surprising given the frequent criticism of the U.S. healthcare system, characterized by high costs and non-universal access. France, South Korea, and Sweden, all at 74%, reflect similar appreciation, indicating generally solid healthcare systems with room for improvement. Australia and the United Kingdom, with 71%, show slight dissatisfaction, possibly due to issues such as long waiting lists or variable quality of care. " A 2025 Imperial University study found: "Our analysis shows that if the UK were to achieve the same treatable mortality rate as Switzerland, around 22,000 lives could be saved every year – equivalent to roughly 60 people every day. This is not an abstract aspiration, but a reminder that meaningful progress is both possible and measurable." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Swiss generally have a much, much higher minimum income than the UK (~4000-5000 USD/month and lower taxes). Check out the spread of incomes. I'm not comparing minimums. I'm pointing out that 15-20% of Swiss households earn the same or less than the average UK wage, but are still required to pay 2x what their UK cousins pay in healthcare costs - so talking averages doesn't really mean much for them, does it? Your maths isn't mathing. You really need to consider the overall standard of life, wage environment, total cost of treatment at different life stages... You seem to want to doggedly object to the Swiss system. It's not all about comparison - it's simply a model that works, that isn't fully public. The only rationale for bringing Singapore, Switzerland and Netherlands as examples was to demonstrate that private can work, and work well. If you want to criticise the Swiss model, then great. But first acknowledge that, to Swiss people, it broadly works. Potentially better than the NHS. You can then rip into it as much as you like - nobody is suggesting that we SHOULD adopt that specific model in the UK. Transitioning would be very, very painful. But some lessons of next practice could, potentially, be learnt." You were the one who brought up Switzerland but you keep moving the goalposts. You used it as a comparison but now you don't want it used as a comparison. Nor am I objecting to the Swiss system (not sure where you got that from). Private can absolutely work but at a price - hence BUPA | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Treatable mortality rate in Netherlands is 59.2. The same for England/Wales is 82. Not really "modest". Which year are you using for those numbers ??? Source please. " "Preventable and treatable mortality statistics" in the EU website has Netherlands data for 2022. For England/Wales, you can look up "Avoidable mortality in England and Wales: 2021 and 2022" in the ONS website. " Just to be clear - you're OK with paying more in taxes so healthcare professionals can be paid more, yes?" I am ok with paying more if I know for sure that my healthcare outcomes will improve. A side effect of that would be better pay for healthcare workers as the demand for workers goes up. I don't believe NHS would do that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You were the one who brought up Switzerland but you keep moving the goalposts. You used it as a comparison but now you don't want it used as a comparison. Nor am I objecting to the Swiss system (not sure where you got that from). Private can absolutely work but at a price - hence BUPA " Goalposts for what? Switzerland was simply brought up as an example of a system that works, in contrast to the USA. It works. Goal. No posts need moving. That was a really confusing interaction!  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
