[UK] Labour support surges in Wales - 16 point shift - Polidicks

[QUOTE=The mouse;52274465]The latest Yougov poll is even more frightening for the Tories [Media]https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/867848021182173185[/media] On these figures, they'd only have a majority of 28.[/QUOTE] May being a huge fuck up helps.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52274293]on the the nationalisation subject let me just remind everyone that the NHS is nationalised and look what a clusterfuck that is and has been for both labour and the tories.[/QUOTE] The NHS is considered the best healthcare system in the world and is incredibly cost effective. If it were properly funded* to cope with rising pressures from an ageing population, doctors and nurses were properly staffed and paid and the government let them do their job it wouldn't have most of the problems you complain about. *in terms of per capita cost we can increase it quite a bit and still be pretty average on cost, great on treatment and the best of the best on coverage.

[QUOTE=The mouse;52274465]The latest Yougov poll[/QUOTE] Speaking of... [img]https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2017-05-25/chart%201.png[/img] Things are getting wild.

[Media]https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/867848021182173185[/media] I wish some more voters need to abandon vote Liberal Dems and need to be voted Labour if they want to destroy Theresa May chances of keep in power. And even they don't like their party ideology and current leader they need to end this worst era in British history. And it's so close to beat them honestly.

if May somehow lost, would that be the second shortest period that someone's been prime minister?

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52274293]on the the nationalisation subject let me just remind everyone that the NHS is nationalised and look what a clusterfuck that is and has been for both labour and the tories.[/QUOTE] Everyone I talk to from britain considers the NHS the pride of the country but it doesn't work all that well if you insist on not funding it properly.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52274293]on the the nationalisation subject let me just remind everyone that the NHS is nationalised and look what a clusterfuck that is and has been for both labour and the tories.[/QUOTE] Are you really going to use the NHS as an argument against nationalisation?? Really? It's one of the most efficient healthcare systems in the world.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52274293]on the the nationalisation subject let me just remind everyone that the NHS is nationalised and look what a clusterfuck that is and has been for both labour and the tories.[/QUOTE] coz its underfunded. look at budget growth compared to population growth and inflation. dude

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52274293]on the the nationalisation subject let me just remind everyone that the NHS is nationalised and look what a clusterfuck that is and has been for both labour and the tories.[/QUOTE] Are you joking? This has seriously got to be a joke The NHS is amazing

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52274293]on the the nationalisation subject let me just remind everyone that the NHS is nationalised and look what a clusterfuck that is and has been for both labour and the tories.[/QUOTE] Are you joking? If you want private healthcare fuck arf to the USA please and see how you like it before ruining us. It's terribly underfunded.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;52276519]Are you joking? If you want private healthcare fuck arf to the USA please and see how you like it before ruining us. It's terribly underfunded.[/QUOTE] Cherry picked example. You have to remember that most healthcare systems in the developed world are hybrid systems that still carry a heavy free-market element and manage to have better outcomes with lower costs than the NHS. Single-payer healthcare is incredibly inefficient, and actually pretty rare as well because of that. Although don't look at the tories to improve the UK healthcare. They're just gonna deliberately break the NHS and replace it with something much worse.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52276704]Cherry picked example. You have to remember that most healthcare systems in the developed world are hybrid systems that still carry a heavy free-market element and manage to have much better outcomes with lower costs than the NHS. Single-payer healthcare is incredibly inefficient, and actually pretty rare as well because of that. Although don't look at the tories to improve the UK healthcare. They're just gonna deliberately break the NHS and replace it with something much worse.[/QUOTE] Lower costs than the NHS? I'm curious. [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health"]This 2014 survey said its pretty good. [/URL] [quote]In 2014 the NHS was ranked the best and most efficient in the world by the independent Commonwealth Fund[/quote] What changed since 2014? Cuts (or rather budget freezes in the face of inflation and pop increase) and privatisation An insurance system might be cheaper for the government but at what cost? I quite like knowing that no matter what happens to be and my friends and my family we will all, always have access to care. Never will I have go weigh up whether I can afford care or insurance. And having the system funded by taxes allows the burden to be put on those who can most afford it (also those who benefits most - ie the people who employ those healthy workers and who sell products to people who can afford to buy stuff because they're not shitting it over healthcare/insurance costs)

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52276719]Lower costs than the NHS? I'm curious. [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health"]This 2014 survey said its pretty good. [/URL] What changed since 2014? Cuts (or rather budget freezes in the face of inflation and pop increase) and privatisation An insurance system might be cheaper for the government but at what cost? I quite like knowing that no matter what happens to be and my friends and my family we will all, always have access to care. Never will I have go weigh up whether I can afford care or insurance. And having the system funded by taxes allows the burden to be put on those who can most afford it (also those who benefits most - ie the people who employ those healthy workers and who sell products to people who can afford to buy stuff because they're not shitting it over healthcare/insurance costs)[/QUOTE] [URL]https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/26/nhs-comes-14th-in-europe-wide-survey-on-health-systems[/URL] And here's one claiming it's mediocre. In the systems I'm referring to like in Switzerland, Singapore, Netherlands, Germany, etc. everyone typically does have healthcare. I never said universal healthcare was bad. Single-payer is only one way of doing it. These systems are still funded by taxes too. Just not entirely. Switzerland for example is fairly complicated, but a simple way to put it might be that you have to find your own private insurance, and if it costs more than a certain amount of your income the government will cover the difference. I never said that full privatization is the answer either. And yeah, those cuts and privatization are what I was referring to when talking about the tories intentionally breaking government to then say that it's broken. But I probably shouldn't have really said what I said about [B]better[/B] results with lower costs since that's a very complicated thing to evaluate. What is important though is that single-payer isn't an angelic perfect system that's the only way forward. Anyone who thinks so is neglecting most first world countries that don't do it, many of which used to until abandoning it (e.g. netherlands.) Technically the UK isn't even single-payer btw. It's just public option in a multi-payer system.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52276782][URL]https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/26/nhs-comes-14th-in-europe-wide-survey-on-health-systems[/URL] And here's one claiming it's mediocre. [/quote] 2016 study. I said 2014 and whats happened since then (budget freeze and privatisation meaning money from that budget is being extracted as profit) [quote] In the systems I'm referring to like in Switzerland, Singapore, Netherlands, Germany, etc. everyone typically does have healthcare. I never said universal healthcare was bad. Single-payer is only one way of doing it. These systems are still funded by taxes too. Just not entirely. Switzerland for example is fairly complicated, but a simple way to put it might be that you have to find your own private insurance, and if it costs more than a certain amount of your income the government will cover the difference. I never said that full privatization is the answer either. [/quote] Germany is insurance based which is why I mentioned it, might work. But the NHS worked great in 2014 according to that study, why can't we just try to fix it again? It worked. It's doing badly because of budgeting, not because of principle. I'd rather not have to worry about paying for insurance nor would families/people in the UK who aren't doing so well. Insurance would be like a flat tax - each person gets charged the same amount for insurance (at least in Germany) which puts the burden onto the poor rather than on those who can afford it. Furthermore the rich would likely get some alternative healthcare insurance, so they wouldn't pay into the same pool as the poor anyway. I prefer the idea of the rich supporting the poor, since the rich rely on the poor to buy their products and work for them. If we must have such inequality we should at least strive to make each group support each other. [quote] And yeah, those cuts and privatization are what I was referring to when talking about the tories intentionally breaking government to then say that it's broken. But I probably shouldn't have really said what I said about [B]better[/B] results with lower costs since that's a very complicated thing to evaluate. What is important though is that single-payer isn't an angelic perfect system that's the only way forward. Anyone who thinks so is neglecting most first world countries that don't do it, many of which used to until abandoning it (e.g. netherlands.)[/QUOTE] You're wrong about it being a bad system. Other systems work sure, but the NHS worked fine (according to that 2014 study). Don't try to dismiss it when its doing badly from frozen budget and privatisation.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52274293]on the the nationalisation subject let me just remind everyone that the NHS is nationalised and look what a clusterfuck that is and has been for both labour and the tories.[/QUOTE] Is that the best you can do? Alright, well, here's an example on privatisation, the National Rail. After privatisation, the National Rail has had some of the most expensive fares in the world, costs 5 times more to the taxpayer than it used to when it was the British Rail, if you have ever traveled to London you know the service is shit and prone to delays because of a near complete lack of interest in passenger comfort over profits, and if you've ever been outside the UK you know how woefully inadequate and outdated the trains are compared to anything else in the continent. The fallacy is that the free market would have sorted out a system in which there isn't really any competition; rail systems in the UK don't have several different companies serving the same line, it could theoretically, but in practice there's just one operator for one particular line and they can often charge whatever they want for their services.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;52274493]The NHS is considered the best healthcare system in the world and is incredibly cost effective. If it were properly funded* to cope with rising pressures from an ageing population, doctors and nurses were properly staffed and paid and the government let them do their job it wouldn't have most of the problems you complain about. *in terms of per capita cost we can increase it quite a bit and still be pretty average on cost, great on treatment and the best of the best on coverage.[/QUOTE] Exactly my point, if it was funded and run properly. [editline]26th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Big Bang;52276815]Is that the best you can do? Alright, well, here's an example on privatisation, the National Rail. After privatisation, the National Rail has had some of the most expensive fares in the world, costs 5 times more to the taxpayer than it used to when it was the British Rail, if you have ever traveled to London you know the service is shit and prone to delays because of a near complete lack of interest in passenger comfort over profits, and if you've ever been outside the UK you know how woefully inadequate and outdated the trains are compared to anything else in the continent. The fallacy that the free market would have sorted out a system in which there isn't really any competition; rail systems in the UK don't have several different companies serving the same line, it could theoretically, but in practice there's just one operator for one particular line and they can often charge whatever they want for their services.[/QUOTE] Speaking from experience I live in Hertfordshire and regularly commute to the city. I.don't have any problems. British rail was fucked. It's bollocks to pretend our nationalised industries were any good.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52276829] Speaking from experience I live in Hertfordshire and regularly commute to the city. I.don't have any problems. British rail was fucked. It's bollocks to pretend our nationalised industries were any good.[/QUOTE] southern rail? northern rail? fees going up faster than inflation? gov spending and subsidies increasing despite "private being cheaper and better" m8 pretending a problem doesn't exist isn't a good way to convince people. it just makes you look disingenuous, which I'm sure you're not. . . . . All you're going to achieve is people you writing you off as a nutter and getting bored with discussing stuff with you. There are other conservative posters on this forum with whom discussion is far more wholesome and worthwhile.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52276807]2016 study. I said 2014 and whats happened since then (budget freeze and privatisation meaning money from that budget is being extracted as profit) Germany is insurance based which is why I mentioned it, might work. But the NHS worked great in 2014 according to that study, why can't we just try to fix it again? It worked. It's doing badly because of budgeting, not because of principle. I'd rather not have to worry about paying for insurance nor would families/people in the UK who aren't doing so well. Insurance would be like a flat tax - each person gets charged the same amount for insurance (at least in Germany) which puts the burden onto the poor rather than on those who can afford it. Furthermore the rich would likely get some alternative healthcare insurance, so they wouldn't pay into the same pool as the poor anyway. I prefer the idea of the rich supporting the poor, since the rich rely on the poor to buy their products and work for them. If we must have such inequality we should at least strive to make each group support each other. You're wrong about it being a bad system. Other systems work sure, but the NHS worked fine (according to that 2014 study). Don't try to dismiss it when its doing badly from frozen budget and privatisation.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.healthpowerhouse.com/files/EHCI_2014/EHCI_2014_report.pdf[/URL] 2014. UK ranked 14. Both are interesting studies but one thing you have to take into account is that the one you linked will be a bit biased towards government healthcare systems. It takes into account things that those systems do get rid of, such as up-front costs, greatly working in their favour. Though I'm not saying it's a useless study. Just keep that in mind. It's hard to compare very different systems because the metrics you use can vary a lot. When the OECD compares healthcare systems they stick them into 6 groups to mitigate this. I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all healthcare system. Germans tend to be very happy with their system that is essentially what Obama tried to give us until conservative democratic cunts forced the bill to be changed. And likewise Canadians tend to be pretty happy with theirs as well. I'd probably be happy health-care wise in either country. Just remember that my original message was that private healthcare isn't inherently a bad thing, and that single-payer isn't some holy grail. I don't hate single-payer, the only thing I hate about it is the hype. (American progressives sometimes seem to think it's the ONLY option.) By the way it's not impossible to take wealth into account with these systems. You can have a system of up-front payments with refunds, for example, with refunds based on a few factors. (How France does it.) Or you can simply tax the rich elsewhere and put that to use in a way that benefits the poor health-wise. For example, one reason the US has such high spending per person is because we DON'T spend that public money on other social services, which leads to terrible physical health.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52276855][URL]http://www.healthpowerhouse.com/files/EHCI_2014/EHCI_2014_report.pdf[/URL] 2014. UK ranked 14. Both are interesting studies but one thing you have to take into account is that the one you linked will be a bit biased towards government healthcare systems. It takes into account things that those systems do get rid of, such as up-front costs, greatly working in their favour. Though I'm not saying it's a useless study. Just keep that in mind. It's hard to compare very different systems because the metrics you use can vary a lot. When the OECD compares healthcare systems they stick them into 6 groups to mitigate this. [/quote] Well I suppose there are different metrics by which to rank healthcare. Personally up front cost would be important to me. There are people who live paycheck to paycheck [quote[ I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all healthcare system. Germans tend to be very happy with their system that is essentially what Obama tried to give us until conservative democratic cunts forced the bill to be changed. [/quote] It would be impossible for Obama to have anything "further left" than the German system anyway. but ye, not a bad system. I've heard (from german friends) there are inconsistencies between the different states and it does result in everyone using 1 thing ie lack of competition (with singleplayer being a near monopoly but tax funded single payer answers to the tax payer others wouldn't). [quote] And likewise Canadians tend to be pretty happy with theirs as well. I'd probably be happy health-care wise in either country. Just remember that my original message was that private healthcare isn't inherently a bad thing, and that single-payer isn't some holy grail. [b]I don't hate single-payer, the only thing I hate about it is the hype.[/b] (American progressives sometimes seem to think it's the ONLY option.) [/quote] Well maybe I misunderstood your post, apologies. Single payer is hyped up and I think that perhaps in America, where its so large with so much difference between different local governments. Also the opposition to it is so great implementation would be sabotaged and retarded - lowering confidence and perhaps destroying the system. So pragmatically single payer might not be realistic for the USA. [quote] By the way it's not impossible to take wealth into account with these systems. You can have a system of up-front payments with refunds, for example, with refunds based on a few factors. (How France does it.) Or you can simply tax the rich elsewhere and put that to use in a way that benefits the poor health-wise. For example, one reason the US has such high spending per person is because we DON'T spend that public money on other social services, which leads to terrible physical health.[/QUOTE] Up front discount with refund? why not just simplify the process? What about paycheck to paycheck people who may not be able (or willing) to afford that. So someone who feels a lump might convince themselves its nothing because if they go docs they'll get in debt. (gets into discussion about agency which might be too off topic and too contentious for this). Tax systems do a similar thing and its not great, a system with flat benefits and higher taxes (spooky) would be simpler, easier to implement and doesn't let anyone "slip through the net".

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52276879] Up front discount with refund? why not just simplify the process? What about paycheck to paycheck people who may not be able (or willing) to afford that. So someone who feels a lump might convince themselves its nothing because if they go docs they'll get in debt. (gets into discussion about agency which might be too off topic and too contentious for this). Tax systems do a similar thing and its not great, a system with flat benefits and higher taxes (spooky) would be simpler, easier to implement and doesn't let anyone "slip through the net".[/QUOTE] If you'd go into debt for checking for cancer you'd probably get a 100% refund in a properly tuned allotment. Likewise with the person living paycheck to paycheck. For France, which is the country I had in mind with that example, the government on average covered 77% of expenses. 70% is the average refund. The more expensive/life saving something is the more that becomes 100% refunds. The reason to not "simplify" the process is to keep the aspect of competition and profit motives, which are not bad things when harnessed and regulated properly, while still acknowledging that certain people are in need. Refunds are just one example of how you can gear your system to take care of the poor without necessitating going full single-payer or something like the NHS. There's plenty of ways.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52276829]Exactly my point, if it was funded and run properly.[/QUOTE] so why do you support the tories

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52276975]so why do you support the tories[/QUOTE] I think (very likely) that he's staunch Brexit fanboy and maybe closet UKIP follower?

[QUOTE=ChadMcGoatMan;52277009]I think (very likely) that he's staunch Brexit fanboy and maybe closet UKIP follower?[/QUOTE] Wasn't that kind of obvious for several months now? On topic though it's so great to see that May is heavily losing support.

[QUOTE=Cone;52274528]if May somehow lost, would that be the second shortest period that someone's been prime minister?[/QUOTE] A well deserved title imo

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52276975]so why do you support the tories[/QUOTE] Because there isn't a viable alternative and I'm not stupid enough to expect every single policy to be favourable. I'm not staunch tory either as I come from a working class background with blinkered parents who always voted Labour. I used the NHS as an example because nationalisation clearly doesn't work regardless of who is in Govt.

[QUOTE=Grizz;52274518]Speaking of... [img]https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2017-05-25/chart%201.png[/img] Things are getting wild.[/QUOTE] Oh god imagine the fucking hilarity of May losing her blatant powergrab

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52281125]Oh god imagine the fucking hilarity of May losing her blatant powergrab[/QUOTE] It would almost be like karma for their shit show Brexit powergrab

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52261257]The only reason I want British Labour to win is because I have friends in the UK that'd be fucked by the Conservatives. One hopes that they can win. It won't prevent Brexit but it might not make it as insane.[/QUOTE] I can't see how they couldn't call for an end to brexit once they have control assuming they could oust may

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52281125]Oh god imagine the fucking hilarity of May losing her blatant powergrab[/QUOTE] She got too cocky with her perception of an assured victory and decided to come out with mad policy, this is the result. I'm quite glad honestly, I don't really want Corbyn either but if the Tories ended up with only a small majority it'd prevent them from implementing their more nutty policy.

As much as I'd rather see Labour lead the UK than the Conservatives or May, I despite Corbyn, his past and so much of how he conducts himself.