The Political Thread

[JayzusB.Christ]

I find it hard to understand how anyone would want a privatised health service over a public one, bar the very rich who truly don't give a flying fuck about anyone not in their financial stratum.  You're going to end up with a healthcare system as shitty as ours (though even here Walter White could apply for a medical card and save a lot of hassle).

On a tangent, is it just me or do the Daily Express's cover lines seem more desperate by the day? 'BREXIT WILL WORK.' 'NO, IT WILL.' 'WHAT? SHUT UP. IT WILL, RIGHT? '

[Smith]

Breaking Bad would have been a very boring show if it was set in Canada.

[TordelBack]

Please don't give opportunity to pedantically observe that Walt's big motivation was to provide for his family after his death, not to pay for medical expenses*. And of course to apply his underused genius (and unsuspected ruthlessness) in creating a life of significance for himself. Neither of which problem would have been helped much by socialised healthcare on its own.

All other points stand.



*A misconception of which I myself was disabused possibly on this very thread.

[JayzusB.Christ]

You're right; you're absolutely right; you couldn't be more right.  And so am I. </Partridge>

Also, he enjoyed the living shit out of being a gangster.

[Smith]

I know the story.I just couldnt resist saying that.

[IndigoPrime]

The common argument in favour of private healthcare is that people don't want to pay for other people's care. Bar the astonishingly selfish line of thinking there, it's cognitive dissonance in the sense of what insurance-based systems actually do. Even in the USA, private healthcare involves you paying for other people's care. It's just that the pool is smaller and the market is profit-oriented, thereby pushing up your costs. Compare that to the NHS, where many millions pool resources, making the thing relatively affordable for everyone (and also providing a safety net for those who cannot pay).

But again the British hear mostly only bad news about the NHS. Like the EU, there's a constant drip of horrible stories, as injected into the press by those with vested interest in private health. The way things are heading, we'll actually get the worst of it: privatised healthcare sitting under NHS branding. So it would end up being government subsidised, but run by private companies who aren't accountable, and who'll flee (thereby leaving locals in the shit) the second things get dicey. Hell, this is already happening.

It's notable that whenever you find people who've used systems in the US and UK, you quite often find Americans pleasantly surprised by the NHS, rating it at least as favourably as back home. (In the case of the reverse, I imagine you'd find somewhat similar "surprisingly good" from Brits on holiday, assuming they have masses of insurance and don't see the bill. An exception there is perhaps dental, which can often be cheaper in the USA than the UK – but then that's something in the UK that's long been some what separated from state funding. And when I was recently at the dentist and say someone in floods of tears because they could not afford the work they so desperately needed, it did make me wonder where the rest of our system is going to end up.)

[Jim_Campbell]

And when I was recently at the dentist and say someone in floods of tears because they could not afford the work they so desperately needed, it did make me wonder where the rest of our system is going to end up.)

There are still NHS dentists, although it's a bugger finding one who's taking new patients — the services are chargeable, but only in fairly broad, cheap, payment 'bands'. The NHS walk-in centres usually have a dentist on-site. A friend of mine had some fairly extensive dental work done at a walk-in centre for a nominal NHS fee.

[JayzusB.Christ]

The NHS is proof that the UK can be amazing when it tries. It's an institution to be proud of and one that I am extremely envious of. Please don't let the fuckers take it from you.

[NapalmKev]

Dr Hillary was on the TV this morning complaining about 'Johnny Foreigner' apparently abusing theNHS. I'm guessing he's a Tory because he makes no mention about the lack of investment or possible privatisation of this most cherished of public services.

He also suggested people show "two forms of ID" to prove their nationality before being given treatment.

The man is an arse!

[Jim_Campbell]

Dr Hillary was on the TV this morning complaining about 'Johnny Foreigner' apparently abusing theNHS.

The Dept of Health has declined several FOI requests for the figures on this in recent years. Given that there are no commercial or national security implications releasing this information, there are only two conclusions: 1) They have no data, or 2) they have data, and it doesn't support their assertions.

[IndigoPrime]

Likely a rounding error. As for two forms of ID, that couldn't surely be something used to exclude people — including Brits — who just don't happen to have ID, could it? *LOUD COUGH*

[Theblazeuk]

Tony Fucking Blair.

[The Legendary Shark]

Terrorism, hybrid threats and cyber- and energy-insecurity leave EU countries no choice but to step up their security and defence cooperation efforts, thus paving the way to a European Defence Union, say MEPs in a resolution passed on Tuesday. They suggest devoting 2% of GDP to defence, establishing multinational forces and EU headquarters to plan and command crisis management operations, and enabling the EU to act where NATO is unwilling to do so.

Time for Obi Wan to visit Kamino it is.

Am I alone in finding the idea of an EU army disquieting?

Who will be in charge of this Grand Army of the Union? Will it have nuclear capabilities? (Given that some of its member states have nukes, this seems likely.) Will member countries who don't want or can't afford to contribute 2% of their GDP to fund this army be sanctioned? Will it be empowered to carry out Afghanistan/Syria/Iraq-style "peacekeeping operations"? (The idea of launching "a CSDP training operation in Iraq to support member states involved in the coalition against Daesh" suggests a possible answer to this question.) Will those operations be restricted to areas outside the EU or will it have a domestic mandate also? What kind of "real threats" will it respond to, and how? Will it reserve the right to institute conscription? What if Tony Blair becomes President of the EU and is handed a dodgy databar containing information about nasty things afoot in Latveria?

Would BREXIT have been seen as a "real threat" to the Union's security? If this army had been created two years ago, would there now be German, French, Spanish, Belgian, Dutch, Scandinavian and Italian troops, all in the same natty berets, preparing to protect us ordinary British people from the evil, racist and greedy Sepratist Government in Westminster and its once-proud Rebel Army? What will happen in the future if talks of ESPEXIT, FRANXIT or DEUXIT arise? Will just the threat of this new, homogenous force be enough to deter such movements? CSDP "peacekeepers" defending gallant pro-EU parliament buildings against filthy seperatists? Or, by the time a country gets its (jobs and economy boosting) brand-spanking new Common Security and Defence Policy facilities (probably dubbed something like "Freedom Centres" and manned by well-armed pan-European troops), will it be too late to secede?

Maybe the above is a black view and this project is intended to protect the EU from Anonymous, ISIS and Russia. Maybe it is just a precaution in case Trump makes good on his waffling about pulling out of NATO to save money. Those just feel like excuses, to me. As a general rule, armies are not created merely for decoration. An army has only two purposes; attack and defence. The only question is whom do they attack and whom do they defend? The EU started as a simple trading club and now look at it - an authoritarian monolith sucking up power and influence a drop at a time, but sucking up those drops 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and, thanks to computers, 36,525 days a year. An army is the next logical step. The vast majority of governments, sooner or later, need to find ways to defend themselves and their power. This is the reason behind the creation of many, but admittedly not all, armies - to protect or gain the throne. This CSDP army is being created to protect the structures, institutions and mechanisms of the EU, not the ordinary people. It is easy to forget, for example, that the first country invaded by the Nazi army was Germany. It's the 1930s all over the place.

If an army has to kill one person to protect the stability of the state, the state will order it. If the army has to kill 10,000 people to protect the stability of the state, the state will order it. If an army has to destroy one town to protect the stability of the state, the state will order it. If an army has to devastate an entire region to maintain the stability of the state, the state will order it. If an army has to destroy one country to protect the stability of the state, the state will order it. Civilian casualties factor in only as a matter of p.r., to the army's owners and directors if not the troops on the ground - who might see themselves as doing their duty to their people, serving something bigger than themselves or just drawing a paycheck. Following orders.

No army is benign, except maybe that one with the bassoons and the soup, and neither will this one be. It will contribute to the already bloated military industrial complex. It will invite attack from its stated enemies and others. At some point, it will be used. The world might not be actually on fire but it's certainly smouldering like a grumpy volcano. Do we really need to add another army to the mix?

If ever there was a time to actually replace the EU's current anthem with The Imperial March from Star Wars, this would be it.

The only ray of hope I can find is that the resolution was passed by 386 votes to 237, with 74 abstentions. If it's not just for show, that's a pretty hefty split. Maybe this madness can still be stopped.

[Smith]

I guess we bailed out just in time.

[Jim_Campbell]

Am I alone in finding the idea of an EU army disquieting?

Only if you find the notion of the EU in some way troubling to begin with, I suspect. If all the countries of Europe share an army, it seems vanishingly unlikely that they could ever go to war with each other.

With Russian sabre-rattling on the eastern borders, Trump's pally relationship with Putin and somewhat unclear level of enthusiasm for, or commitment to, NATO, I can see quite a lot of sense in it, TBH.