Leaders Debate - Who won?

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Oh I'm sorry I thought it was ok to do this....after all you were more than happy to this with Farage.

How are you coping with the other questions?

Out of interest how many people from abroad with life threatening illnesses do you want to treat with money that is supposed to be for the British?


5000?...10,000...100,000....more?

Where does the British tax payers responsibility end?

Should our hospitals just open up to everyone, and provide free treatment for the whole of the world?

If as Labour say the tories are killing the NHS, how can we afford this?

My take on 'health tourism' is that is a minor playing in the things that need to be dealt with and Farage is an arch advocate in highlighting the financially trivial and pretending that it is a major issue that no one wants to deal with. The reality is that it is just a distraction and that as is usually the way with him there is someone to blame (nearly always foreign) and a hint of a conspiracy theory. Does his German wife never go to the Dr? Hmmm. HIV is something that hospitals test for as a matter of course and you have to opt out rather than opt in - because it is a killer and if you have it you can infect others. Leaving it untreated is not good for the health of the nation. But that really isn't the kind of logic that would appeal to Mr Farage or his supporters.




The NHS is very costly, the ageing population eats up an increasing amount of the budget. Obesity eats up a large amount. Smoking and drinking has a massive cost to the NHS budget and for some reason Farage never highlights that as an issue. Health tourism takes up a tiny part of the budget and because of this it is rarely highlighted by Heath professionals because they deal in realities and are not look for people to blame to enhance their own careers.



I was blissfully unaware until Cameron released his ('this is a Christian country') Easter message that he is using tens of millions of pounds on repairs to Christian Churches. I'd advocate reigning that in before restricting HIV treatment.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G1qo1gd4klc




The current government are allowing anyone who wants to to build Free schools (other than the democratically elected local council - they are banned from building new schools). These don't need to be in areas where there is a need for additional school places, they can be selective on all sorts of criteria, they don't need to be set up by people with any educational background and they don't need to employ qualified teachers. I would look at the cost vs need of those schools before restricting HIV treatment.


Tax avoiding / evading companies such as Starbucks, Amazon, Google and the countless companies individuals that HSBC were aiding and abetting cost this nation an incalculable amount of lost revenue and it would be far more cost effective to dedicate time and resources to tackling that major issue rather than trying to save money restricting HIV treatment.


Referendums are costly in terms of the funds spent on advertising and admin. With the Scottish and potential EU referendums it's like having a whole new election - but the results can lead to changes in our set up that have massive financial consequences for the nation. For the man whose party has one core policy that has such far reaching financial impacts on our nation to use the tiny amount of time he was given in THE election TV debate to highlight the pittance involved in HIV treatment is a sick joke.


Repeal the ban on hunting with dogs. Really? Are UKIP and the Tories really going to use valuable time in Parliament to go through that debate again? Is there a poll anywhere that says this is something the general public are in favour of doing? Do they really think that hunt Sabs would not come back in greater numbers than ever and the policing bill would be massive to protect blood sports? The kind of people that would have that as a policy are probably the kind of people that would question the value of funding HIV treatment.


Trident - if Nigel really wants to save us money he should start researching the various options on Trident as the costs can go up or down dramatically depending on which option is taken. Rather than be distracted by something like the cost of HIV treatment.

 

[Pubey]

 

[Pubey]

My take on 'health tourism' is that is a minor playing in the things that need to be dealt with and Farage is an arch advocate in highlighting the financially trivial and pretending that it is a major issue that no one wants to deal with. The reality is that it is just a distraction and that as is usually the way with him there is someone to blame (nearly always foreign) and a hint of a conspiracy theory. Does his German wife never go to the Dr? Hmmm. HIV is something that hospitals test for as a matter of course and you have to opt out rather than opt in - because it is a killer and if you have it you can infect others. Leaving it untreated is not good for the health of the nation. But that really isn't the kind of logic that would appeal to Mr Farage or his supporters.




The NHS is very costly, the ageing population eats up an increasing amount of the budget. Obesity eats up a large amount. Smoking and drinking has a massive cost to the NHS budget and for some reason Farage never highlights that as an issue. Health tourism takes up a tiny part of the budget and because of this it is rarely highlighted by Heath professionals because they deal in realities and are not look for people to blame to enhance their own careers.



I was blissfully unaware until Cameron released his ('this is a Christian country') Easter message that he is using tens of millions of pounds on repairs to Christian Churches. I'd advocate reigning that in before restricting HIV treatment.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G1qo1gd4klc




The current government are allowing anyone who wants to to build Free schools (other than the democratically elected local council - they are banned from building new schools). These don't need to be in areas where there is a need for additional school places, they can be selective on all sorts of criteria, they don't need to be set up by people with any educational background and they don't need to employ qualified teachers. I would look at the cost vs need of those schools before restricting HIV treatment.


Tax avoiding / evading companies such as Starbucks, Amazon, Google and the countless companies individuals that HSBC were aiding and abetting cost this nation an incalculable amount of lost revenue and it would be far more cost effective to dedicate time and resources to tackling that major issue rather than trying to save money restricting HIV treatment.


Referendums are costly in terms of the funds spent on advertising and admin. With the Scottish and potential EU referendums it's like having a whole new election - but the results can lead to changes in our set up that have massive financial consequences for the nation. For the man whose party has one core policy that has such far reaching financial impacts on our nation to use the tiny amount of time he was given in THE election TV debate to highlight the pittance involved in HIV treatment is a sick joke.


Repeal the ban on hunting with dogs. Really? Are UKIP and the Tories really going to use valuable time in Parliament to go through that debate again? Is there a poll anywhere that says this is something the general public are in favour of doing? Do they really think that hunt Sabs would not come back in greater numbers than ever and the policing bill would be massive to protect blood sports? The kind of people that would have that as a policy are probably the kind of people that would question the value of funding HIV treatment.


Trident - if Nigel really wants to save us money he should start researching the various options on Trident as the costs can go up or down dramatically depending on which option is taken. Rather than be distracted by something like the cost of HIV treatment.

Brilliant post.

You also forgot the bit about stopping hospitals from charging for their car parks.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

If you sit in the waiting room with the other A&E customers Mr Farage and wait for your number to be called. It may take around 4 hours for you to be seen but let's face it we can all take a guess at the cause of your ill health.
NF 'foreigners and the EU'
No, it's cigarettes and alcohol you blinkered old throw back.

 

[superblue24]

My take on 'health tourism' is that is a minor playing in the things that need to be dealt with and Farage is an arch advocate in highlighting the financially trivial and pretending that it is a major issue that no one wants to deal with. The reality is that it is just a distraction and that as is usually the way with him there is someone to blame (nearly always foreign) and a hint of a conspiracy theory. Does his German wife never go to the Dr? Hmmm. HIV is something that hospitals test for as a matter of course and you have to opt out rather than opt in - because it is a killer and if you have it you can infect others. Leaving it untreated is not good for the health of the nation. But that really isn't the kind of logic that would appeal to Mr Farage or his supporters.




The NHS is very costly, the ageing population eats up an increasing amount of the budget. Obesity eats up a large amount. Smoking and drinking has a massive cost to the NHS budget and for some reason Farage never highlights that as an issue. Health tourism takes up a tiny part of the budget and because of this it is rarely highlighted by Heath professionals because they deal in realities and are not look for people to blame to enhance their own careers.



I was blissfully unaware until Cameron released his ('this is a Christian country') Easter message that he is using tens of millions of pounds on repairs to Christian Churches. I'd advocate reigning that in before restricting HIV treatment.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G1qo1gd4klc




The current government are allowing anyone who wants to to build Free schools (other than the democratically elected local council - they are banned from building new schools). These don't need to be in areas where there is a need for additional school places, they can be selective on all sorts of criteria, they don't need to be set up by people with any educational background and they don't need to employ qualified teachers. I would look at the cost vs need of those schools before restricting HIV treatment.


Tax avoiding / evading companies such as Starbucks, Amazon, Google and the countless companies individuals that HSBC were aiding and abetting cost this nation an incalculable amount of lost revenue and it would be far more cost effective to dedicate time and resources to tackling that major issue rather than trying to save money restricting HIV treatment.


Referendums are costly in terms of the funds spent on advertising and admin. With the Scottish and potential EU referendums it's like having a whole new election - but the results can lead to changes in our set up that have massive financial consequences for the nation. For the man whose party has one core policy that has such far reaching financial impacts on our nation to use the tiny amount of time he was given in THE election TV debate to highlight the pittance involved in HIV treatment is a sick joke.


Repeal the ban on hunting with dogs. Really? Are UKIP and the Tories really going to use valuable time in Parliament to go through that debate again? Is there a poll anywhere that says this is something the general public are in favour of doing? Do they really think that hunt Sabs would not come back in greater numbers than ever and the policing bill would be massive to protect blood sports? The kind of people that would have that as a policy are probably the kind of people that would question the value of funding HIV treatment.


Trident - if Nigel really wants to save us money he should start researching the various options on Trident as the costs can go up or down dramatically depending on which option is taken. Rather than be distracted by something like the cost of HIV treatment.

This painfully elongated post has done nothing but confirm to me that you are operating a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

 

[callan]

My take on 'health tourism' is that is a minor playing in the things that need to be dealt with and Farage is an arch advocate in highlighting the financially trivial and pretending that it is a major issue that no one wants to deal with. The reality is that it is just a distraction and that as is usually the way with him there is someone to blame (nearly always foreign) and a hint of a conspiracy theory. Does his German wife never go to the Dr? Hmmm. HIV is something that hospitals test for as a matter of course and you have to opt out rather than opt in - because it is a killer and if you have it you can infect others. Leaving it untreated is not good for the health of the nation. But that really isn't the kind of logic that would appeal to Mr Farage or his supporters.




The NHS is very costly, the ageing population eats up an increasing amount of the budget. Obesity eats up a large amount. Smoking and drinking has a massive cost to the NHS budget and for some reason Farage never highlights that as an issue. Health tourism takes up a tiny part of the budget and because of this it is rarely highlighted by Heath professionals because they deal in realities and are not look for people to blame to enhance their own careers.



I was blissfully unaware until Cameron released his ('this is a Christian country') Easter message that he is using tens of millions of pounds on repairs to Christian Churches. I'd advocate reigning that in before restricting HIV treatment.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G1qo1gd4klc




The current government are allowing anyone who wants to to build Free schools (other than the democratically elected local council - they are banned from building new schools). These don't need to be in areas where there is a need for additional school places, they can be selective on all sorts of criteria, they don't need to be set up by people with any educational background and they don't need to employ qualified teachers. I would look at the cost vs need of those schools before restricting HIV treatment.


Tax avoiding / evading companies such as Starbucks, Amazon, Google and the countless companies individuals that HSBC were aiding and abetting cost this nation an incalculable amount of lost revenue and it would be far more cost effective to dedicate time and resources to tackling that major issue rather than trying to save money restricting HIV treatment.


Referendums are costly in terms of the funds spent on advertising and admin. With the Scottish and potential EU referendums it's like having a whole new election - but the results can lead to changes in our set up that have massive financial consequences for the nation. For the man whose party has one core policy that has such far reaching financial impacts on our nation to use the tiny amount of time he was given in THE election TV debate to highlight the pittance involved in HIV treatment is a sick joke.


Repeal the ban on hunting with dogs. Really? Are UKIP and the Tories really going to use valuable time in Parliament to go through that debate again? Is there a poll anywhere that says this is something the general public are in favour of doing? Do they really think that hunt Sabs would not come back in greater numbers than ever and the policing bill would be massive to protect blood sports? The kind of people that would have that as a policy are probably the kind of people that would question the value of funding HIV treatment.


Trident - if Nigel really wants to save us money he should start researching the various options on Trident as the costs can go up or down dramatically depending on which option is taken. Rather than be distracted by something like the cost of HIV treatment.

You have put a lot of effort into this post, without managing to answer a single question I raised.

Here are the questions again....

Out of interest how many people from abroad with life threatening illnesses do you want to treat with money that is supposed to be for the British?


5000?...10,000...100,000....more?

Where does the British tax payers responsibility end?

Should our hospitals just open up to everyone, and provide free treatment for the whole of the world?

If as Labour say the tories are killing the NHS, how can we afford this?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

You have put a lot of effort into this post, without managing to answer a single question I raised.

Here are the questions again....

Out of interest how many people from abroad with life threatening illnesses do you want to trea[/B]t with money that is supposed to be for the British?


5000?...10,000...100,000....more?

Where does the British tax payers responsibility end?

Should our hospitals just open up to everyone, and provide free treatment for the whole of the world?

If as Labour say the tories are killing the NHS, how can we afford this?

Let's see a breakdown of the figures for those "people with life threatening ilnesses from abroad." Are they from other EU countries? Do they a valid reason for being in the UK, eg relationship with a British partner? etc

 

[callan]

Let's see a breakdown of the figures for those "people with life threatening ilnesses from abroad." Are they from other EU countries? Do they a valid reason for being in the UK, eg relationship with a British partner? etc

They don't need a valid reason to be in the UK for HIV treatment you can be here illegally and still get the treatment.
HIV is life threatening but why stop there?

 

[mrsblue]

The easiest solution.

Every single taxpayer should be asked this very simple question which is,

Would you prefer not to contribute to Health tourism,EU and overseas aid !Those who refuse will of course pay less tax so more cash on their hip,those who still want to pay,then let them.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

They don't need a valid reason to be in the UK for HIV treatment you can be here illegally and still get the treatment.
HIV is life threatening but why stop there?

I see you're deliberatly refusing to answer my questions.I seem to remember you accusing *** of doing just that.:smiles:

The easiest solution.

Every single taxpayer should be asked this very simple question which is,

Would you prefer not to contribute to Health tourism,EU and overseas aid !Those who refuse will of course pay less tax so more cash on their hip,those who still want to pay,then let them.

Don't think you'd get EU approval for your "very simple question"

 

[callan]

I see you're deliberatly refusing to answer my questions.I seem to remember you accusing *** of doing just that.:smiles:



Don't think you'd get EU approval for your "very simple question"

Why would you think that Mrs Blue needs EU approval to ask a question that is for the British Tax payer?

As for your question it is neither here nor there.... once again the treatment for HIV is free regardless of EO or not.
Unless you are suggesting that we should only provide for EU migrants?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

You have put a lot of effort into this post, without managing to answer a single question I raised.

Here are the questions again....

Out of interest how many people from abroad with life threatening illnesses do you want to treat with money that is supposed to be for the British?


5000?...10,000...100,000....more?

Where does the British tax payers responsibility end?

Should our hospitals just open up to everyone, and provide free treatment for the whole of the world?

If as Labour say the tories are killing the NHS, how can we afford this?

I have answered the question - my answer is that I have very different priorities to you and to Nigel Farage. The fact it is not the answer you want is again because we have very different priorities.

 

[mrsblue]

I have answered the question - my answer is that I have very different priorities to you and to Nigel Farage. The fact it is not the answer you want is again because we have very different priorities.

Answer the question ***.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

The easiest solution.

Every single taxpayer should be asked this very simple question which is,

Would you prefer not to contribute to Health tourism,EU and overseas aid !Those who refuse will of course pay less tax so more cash on their hip,those who still want to pay,then let them.

I think that running opt in and out on what you want to pay for would create so much admin that we wouldn't be able to process the paperwork as too many people would have opted out of paying for the admin.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Answer the question ***.

Read the long post. If you don't understand my take on the situation then no harm done.

 

[mrsblue]

I think that running opt in and out on what you want to pay for would create so much admin that we wouldn't be able to process the paperwork as too many people would have opted out of paying for the admin.

Dont agree !

Just those 3 questions will suffice,I wager the majority would opt out,but at the very least every taxpayer has that option.

 

[callan]

I have answered the question - my answer is that I have very different priorities to you and to Nigel Farage. The fact it is not the answer you want is again because we have very different priorities.

It was questions....and no you haven't answered a single one of them....we both know you can't, or you would have done so by now.

Its probably true that politically and socially we have different views, and hence priorities but if we put that in context and the NHS becomes centre stage, how can it be wrong to scrutinise where the money is spent and who on whether you be right or left?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Dont agree !

Just those 3 questions will suffice,I wager the majority would opt out,but at the very least every taxpayer has that option.

And if you read what I am saying it is that everyone has different priorities so whilst you may only want to opt out of these things I would want to opt out of other things so your narrow opt in / out referendum is already not going to work. I would like to opt out of the Royal Family and faith schools please if you can make that happen.

 

[mrsblue]

And if you read what I am saying it is that everyone has different priorities so whilst you may only want to opt out of these things I would want to opt out of other things so your narrow opt in / out referendum is already not going to work. I would like to opt out of the Royal Family and faith schools please if you can make that happen.

Yes we we can add those 2 as well.

EU
Overseas aid
Health tourism
Royal family
Faith schools

Anymore for anymore.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Why would you think that Mrs Blue needs EU approval to ask a question that is for the British Tax payer?

As for your question it is neither here nor there.... once again the treatment for HIV is free regardless of EO or not.
Unless you are suggesting that we should only provide for EU migrants?

It's the sort of question, like the hypothetical one about the queue you'd like to be in at airport check in -the long one where all your bags etc are checked, or the short one where nothing is checked.It aint gonna happen.

HIV (and other medical) treatment ia an a priori right for all EU citizens.It's the sign of a civilised country whether it offers such treatment to other nationals or not.