| The Comments |
Windtalker
Your gripe seems to revolve around the cost of inputs, ie EU costs are too high. I went to my high street recently with my family to buy a few things; the wife and kids wanted some clothes. We could not find anything that was "Made in the UK".
We all know that goods produced in places like China, Bangladesh, etc are cheaper. Thats because they have a lower standard of living, and generally a lower currency. If you look in economics, there are numerous articles that talk about "absolute advantage", and "comparative advantage".
If you feel badly that the EU has input costs that are too high, forcing you to buy from non-EU countries, then what do you say about input costs right here in the UK???
1
Like
|
Even the most neutral observer in the Brexit debate with a decent knowledge of economics can see the UK is journeying headlong into a double whammy financial crisis.
The falling currency will increase the cost of imports especially oil. Imported food and raw materials will reduce the spending power of the population. That will slow the dominant service industry sector. History has shown during previous currency crisis that the counter balance of cheaper exports does not compensate for the downturn elsewhere.
Add to that falling foreign investment and the prospect of being denied access to the single market, it’s a gloomy prospect for UK PLC.
The stock market is happy because most FTSE companies earn their profits in other currencies so there is an edge. However those profits also leave the UK eventually because these companies are largely in overseas ownership.
The government plans of refusing to publically tell the markets of their Brexit plans and intentions, increases the uncertainty for business. EU leaders will learn soon enough of what May intends so what is this reluctance to declare your hand. Unless of course she hasn’t actually formulated a plan yet which seems very likely.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
2
Like
|
As for the NHS, my take on it is that our hospitals just don't have and don't want a treatment approval system, I can't say that I blame them, I have first hand experience of an NHS teaching hospital, and can see that these guys are under so much pressure that it is far easier to treat the sick rather than play big brother.
As for NHS GP practices I conclude that they are remunerated on the basis of actions taken, when I had to pick up my medication from the hospital they all but gave me as much as I could carry, now that my GP practice is in charge of issuing prescriptions I have to visit them every month. They attempt to repeat invesigations that the hospital have concluded and openly question the diagnosis of a highly qualified hospital consultant.
In my opinion we have two NHS's, one first rate and the other not fit for purpose, however I would not wish to support an NHS that turned away the sick for financial reasons, their country of origin should be billed and made to pay for the treatment of their citizens.
_______________________
IF YOU WISH TO QUOTE ANY OF MY POSTS PLEASE DO SO IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND NOT JUST A FEW SELECTED WORDS TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT.
THANK YOU.
0
Like
|
 Shares are doing well thats goog news right
This message was last edited by RIVIERAESTATES on 11/10/2016.
1
Like
|
Spot on the SHARE MARKET is a major BAROMETER of a Countrys WELL BEING.
If you think th BRITS are in the DOO DOO check out our NEIGHBOURS.
https://www.understandfrance.org/French/Issues.html.
Mick needs to FOCUS on his HOME COUNTRY and go off and clean his BLACK pot.
Love Hugh xx
_______________________
Done the Spain thing Happier in the UK
1
Like
|
Hugh,
The reason the sharemarket is on the way up is because the currency is on the way down. Huge overseas funds see this is an opportunity to get access to shares at a cheaper local price.
Whilst crowing about the share gains, perhaps you will spare a thought for all those who need to put petrol in their car, or buy food, or buy anything imported, which will go up as a direct consequence of the depreciated pound?
0
Like
|
When the profit taking from the very high value share market takes place the pound should strengthen, if it doesn't then we really are in trouble. However I would settle for say,1.20€ to the £ to keep overseas money coming in, I never thought that a high value £ was a good thing.
_______________________
IF YOU WISH TO QUOTE ANY OF MY POSTS PLEASE DO SO IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND NOT JUST A FEW SELECTED WORDS TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT.
THANK YOU.
0
Like
|
Rob as EVERYONE knows I left SPAIN early this year and I live in a caravan I have no SHARES no CAR and do not buy anything imported I grow 85% of my own FOOD
IF all the BRITS did what I did they would not have any WORRIES
MONEY does not make you HAPPY
So if you HAVE a gas guzzler eat processed FOOD and buy FRENCH CHEESE or GERMAN SAUSAGES
YOU only have yourself to BLAME
Love Hugh xx
_______________________
Done the Spain thing Happier in the UK
2
Like
|
Hugh,
I dare say, if you're happy, then kudos to you. However I would suggest you don't represent the majority, and are likely to be in an incredibly small minority.
For almost everyone else, your points are not relevant.
Destry
Profit taking = pound strengthening? I'm not so sure. Profit taking means a sell off (share market drops). Money the sent overseas = sell pound and buy other. Pound drops.
If it doesn't then we really are in trouble. This wouldnt surprise me. Don't get me wrong, I dont want to see it, but this is where we've arrived at.
I never thought that a high value £ was a good thing. I don't think its necessarily a bad thing. It means all your imports are cheaper, and for an economy based around tertiary industry (services essentially), it works well. Don't forget, everyone, and I mean *everyone* benefits, when you consider cheaper petrol = cheaper transport costs = cheaper goods in the supermarket = costs less to eat. Then on top of this, you could add that sending money overseas to pensioners gives them more money to spend and generally have a better life.
The reverse is unfortunate, where the pound has dropped, and many people who made their lives overseas now can't afford to live there because the pound doesn't allow the same standard of living. Think of all the families ripped apart due to moving.
Big currency fluctuations can have big impacts on day to day lives, and a lot of it is hidden because there are other bigger news items happening, but it can still affect people profoundly.
I fear there is worse to come.
This message was last edited by rob_j1 on 11/10/2016.
1
Like
|
Latest news according to daily mail
An NHS hospital is proposing to make women show identification before providing them with maternity care in a bid to crack down on so-called health tourism in the NHS.
St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in London has set out proposals which could mean women who attend hospital would need to show photo ID or proof of their right to remain - such as their asylum status or a visa - before receiving care.
Emergency patients would not be asked for their ID, the trust said.
The proposals, which have been set out in the Trust's October board papers, would need piloting before they are rolled out.
The papers state that the Home Office is "very keen" to support such a pilot scheme. If women could not provide such identification they would be sent to the Trust's Overseas Patient Team "for specialist document screening, in liaison with the UKBA and the Home Office", the document adds.
The papers state that there is a rising number of overseas visitors who are accessing NHS care who are not entitled to treatment. " The problem is escalating within obstetrics and we have just been made aware that individuals are currently offering paid assistance to women in Nigeria to have their babies for free on the NHS at St George's," an email in the board papers states.
The email, written by Jo Johnson, head of private and overseas patients for the trust, adds: " St George's is targeted as it does not currently have a robust process to check eligibility. "We know from feedback from other non-eligible patients that St George's is viewed as an 'easy target'." The email goes on to say that the local health economy is losing around £4.6m a year from patients who are accessing the system and are not entitled to. It adds: " We have recently undertaken some work with the Cabinet Office and with UKBA.
The Government are aware of the escalating problem faced by acute Trusts and are working on revised national guidance which is likely to advocate routine presentation of proof of identity and eligibility. "Legislation is due to incorporate charging for A&E and ambulance services which will mean that Trusts will have to insist that this documentation is provided before care is given (unless it is an emergency/life or death situation)."
A St George's Hospital spokesman said: "L ike many London Trusts, we treat a high number of patients from overseas who are not eligible for NHS treatment. All patients in need of emergency NHS care at St George's are treated and prioritised accordingly, regardless of their eligibility. " Our priority at all times is to provide care and treatment to patients requiring our services. However, we also have a duty to ensure we use our resources wisely. "The guidelines state that hospitals should endeavour to check patients for their eligibility when accessing non-emergency NHS treatment. We are not doing this effectively enough at present, and are looking at ways in which we can improve this. "We will continue to treat patients presenting to St George's, whilst also looking at ways of tightening up our existing processes for ineligible patients accessing non-emergency treatment."
Commenting on the news, Rebecca Schiller, chief executive of the human rights in childbirth charity Birthrights, said: "It is unlawful to deny a labouring woman maternity care whatever her residential status. "The current Department of Health overseas visitors guidance makes it clear that, while a woman who isn't ordinarily resident in the UK may be asked to pay for her maternity care, life-saving services should never be withheld if she cannot afford to pay or can't pay in advance."
Cathy Warwick, chief executive of the Royal College of Midwives, said: "This move by the trust is a concern. I am sure no trust would deny care to women in labour or who are pregnant and arrive at a hospital needing urgent care related to their pregnancy. To be clear, the law says, and government policy states, that trusts must offer care to women in labour, irrespective of their immigration status in the country. "On the wider level, midwives also have more than enough to do without checking women's eligibility and determining their immigration status. "They are not border guards; they are healthcare professionals there to deliver clinical care to all women. This is not their job and never should be, and we must assume that the trust will not require them to do this. Their job is to care for the women who walk through the doors of their maternity unit and it is the responsibility of trusts to care for and treat these women. "Most importantly, this move could also be dangerous because it could deter women from seeking care in a timely fashion. This could potentially have a serious impact on the health of the mother and their baby and the outcome of the pregnancy. "I would ask the trust to clarify their policy and to give assurances that all pregnant women who need care will receive it, no matter what their immigration status."
0
Like
|
Oh well if it is in the Daily Fail it must be correct???????
0
Like
|
|
"It is unlawful to deny a labouring woman maternity care whatever her residential status".
The big bugbear in the system. If they can't afford to pay they will still receive care to give birth. And then? My daughter didn't actually work at that hospital (but one fairly close by) and the means to pay was always checked. However, if they claimed they didn't have the funds (despite the fact a flight from Nigeria or wherever isn't exactly cheap) then they were still given the full treatment. The articles fail to report that a woman giving birth is treated as an emergency.
However, what this has to do with Brexit I've no idea. The majotity, as stated before, are from Africa or SE Asia. I doubt any would come from the EU as they are granted residential status from day 1 (which, as I've pointed out before) could have been changed by successive governments if they followed the EU guidance on residency. They could then claim back the costs of treatment from the home country as other EU countries already do.
This message was last edited by mariedav on 11/10/2016.
0
Like
|
Doesn't this pilot scheme imply that this is purely an administrative exercise at point of booking in/ planned procedure, as opposed to denying them treatment?
For EU citizens seeking maternity care, wouldn't this administrative exercise identify the EU country against whom costs can be recouped?
0
Like
|
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
1
Like
|
I often wonder what planet some people live on.
Too many people are bogged down (or narrow minded) on the subject of so called mass immigration they simply aren’t able to see the bigger picture or the real truth.
Health care provision and benefits in the UK for UK citizens and migrants are NOT the EU’s problem or a mandate from the EU and Brexit will not fix this.
Any fix that the UK govt comes up with could just as easily be applied whilst a member of the EU or not.
A simple fix would change the system from resident based to citizen and or contribution based – a bit like the Spanish system. Reduce benefits for those able to work and encourage (force their hand as they have it far too easy) these lazy benefit scroungers back to work.
This is NOT a subject for Brexit, debating it on a Brexit thread is “off topic” and a very blinkered view of the rules and processes etc.
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
3
Like
|
Health care and immigration is a bit of an interesting one.
We're all living longer due to better science (medicinal and nutritional). As we all move along the demographic curve, more and more people will move into pension age. This means a decreasing proportion of people paying taxes to look after the pensioned.
A few questions start popping up:
1. Who will look after the larger number of pensioners (eg care home staff)
2. Where will these staff come from
3. When will these new staff be trained
4. Who's going to pay for all this
Similar questions arise when we look at doctors. Given theres almost a 7 year lead time from when a person goes to medical school and then comes out the other end as a registrar, and then more training for any specialisation, its not exactly hard to understand why the government takes doctors from overseas. Thousands of these people work overseas, so when you need some, just bring them over for an immediate start.
Even if we completely stopped all immigration today (not going to happen, but lets just go with this for a second), then the existing population will still need more resources because we're all getting older. If you add to that (300,000+ per annum population growth), then you can do the maths for yourselves.
The additional point is this; immigrants that work here add to the revenue base through direct and indirect taxes. Natural population growth means that when a child is born, they are just a drain on society* until they become economically productive.
So, just to really make my point clear, I'm in favour of immigration, because it solves a few problems neatly:
1. They are an immediate pool of resources
2. They contribute through tax revenue provision
*Please note, I'm talking PURELY in terms of economics and finances. I have kids of my own and love them to bits, so I'm not having a go at kids at all. Again, this is in the context of the nations finances.
This message was last edited by rob_j1 on 12/10/2016.
3
Like
|
Nearly four months on from the vote where are we at, we don't have a plan to leave the EU other than just pack our suitcase and leave.
How are we formulating a plan. It's a secret because we the voters and the opposition parties and government backbencher are not going to be told. We just have to accept that we will be told when the government is good and ready because they know what is best for the country and we do not.
The pound. Well if it keeps travelling in the direction it is going it will have the additional use as loo roll as it will cheaper to use cash than buy the product I don't fancy using the new fiver for that purpose as it will be a bit scratchy, but they could be reused. And that my friends is the real reason we got new five pound notes Who said the government is no good at forward planning.
2
Like
|
This argument about whether or not we need immigrants is something i've never fully understood. For instance; when we take the lower paid, they compete for houses and jobs, which means we will always have a housing shortage and larger than necessary unemployment, which is a cost to us. The immigrants mostly come from poorer countries, and if we continue to attract the skilled/highly skilled, when will these poorer countries ever become richer, or will they become even poorer?
0
Like
|
Tenerife
Housing and unemployment. Yes, greater population needs more housing. The economy has been growing from day 1, and whether you have your own kids, or whether new residents come from overseas, they all have to live somewhere. Builders make money making houses, and governments make money from stamp duty and VAT on materials, and then council taxes. This is all money these new residents need to pour into the economy.
The countrys wealth has also increased dramatically. If you look at the total number of homes, and see how the average price across the country has gone up over the years, just through maths alone, you can see the enormous benefit that gives to average mums and dads across the country.
As far as unemployment goes, we're currently around 4.9% last I checked, and that figure has been trending downwards steadily since the fiasco of the global financial crisis. I'm not sure why you consider this a cost to us. There needs to be a small pool of unemployed, so that the labour market can allow people to move between one job and another. Many economists believe somewhere between about 4 and 5% is about right.
As far as getting highly skilled people from overseas is concerned and what that means to the original host country, I think thats not a very fair question, for a few reasons:
1. Would you deliberately block someone from chasing their dreams? If someone offered you x% more to do the same job elsewhere, then surely you can understand why some people might choose to accept that? Its a stretch, but the alternative is a bit like communism where you're not free.
2. People already do this domestically, eg moving from London to (insert chosen city name). Would you consider this to be any different? Think of all the poor Londoners missing out on the skills that have just left. (slightly tongue in cheek, but you get my point, right?).
This message was last edited by rob_j1 on 12/10/2016.
3
Like
|