If you are mates with an anaesthetist at the hospital who is mates with the international superstar surgeon for the operation you want done, it can happen that you get sort of unofficially reallocated to that surgeon's NHS list. Allegedly.
I am married to the anaesthetist (here called an anesthesiologist - the MD, as an anesthetist is a nurse) so I never get to chose my surgeon, she does.
Suspect been shot and injured and being taken away in an ambulance. Police also been shot.
Hope his medical insurance is up to date....
Doesn't matter - if you present at ER they have to treat you regardless of insurance. One reason the ER is such an expense to hospitals.
I know...it was a joke. I think a large percentage of British public think that they wouldn't see you at ER without them first swiping your credit card.
Well, I for one don't understand the US Health system. A .
My guess is that your gaming friend received his treatment 'out of network'. When you do that, your co-pay is increased (depends on the policy) and there is no absolute cap on your responsibilities.
When my wife was diagnosed with cancer, we made sure all her providers were 'in-network' so her absolute cap is $2500. Which is just as well, as the chemo drugs came to around $20,000 per session.
Thanks for that Mr. T.. I have absolutely no idea what "in-network" means. However, if it is the difference between, to use your example, a maximum bill of $2,500 and an unlimited bill then I think something is very wrong.
Think of it like car insurers having approved repair centers. A real life example - my daughter on Obamacare needed her gall bladder removed. She had a choice of surgeons you could count on one hand. On my wife's policy the choice was almost 50.
On the NHS you have a choice of 1, drawn from a pool of competent surgeons, which is all you need.
If you want James Robertson Justice to do it personally because you think he is the best then you pay him.
Seems logical?
I'd like to choose my own surgeon thanks.
If you are mates with an anaesthetist at the hospital who is mates with the international superstar surgeon for the operation you want done, it can happen that you get sort of unofficially reallocated to that surgeon's NHS list. Allegedly.
No need for such subterfuge, just request it!
Indeed under the NHS it is your right under the NHS constitution:
Suspect been shot and injured and being taken away in an ambulance. Police also been shot.
Hope his medical insurance is up to date....
Doesn't matter - if you present at ER they have to treat you regardless of insurance. One reason the ER is such an expense to hospitals.
I know...it was a joke. I think a large percentage of British public think that they wouldn't see you at ER without them first swiping your credit card.
Well, I for one don't understand the US Health system. A .
My guess is that your gaming friend received his treatment 'out of network'. When you do that, your co-pay is increased (depends on the policy) and there is no absolute cap on your responsibilities.
When my wife was diagnosed with cancer, we made sure all her providers were 'in-network' so her absolute cap is $2500. Which is just as well, as the chemo drugs came to around $20,000 per session.
Thanks for that Mr. T.. I have absolutely no idea what "in-network" means. However, if it is the difference between, to use your example, a maximum bill of $2,500 and an unlimited bill then I think something is very wrong.
Think of it like car insurers having approved repair centers. A real life example - my daughter on Obamacare needed her gall bladder removed. She had a choice of surgeons you could count on one hand. On my wife's policy the choice was almost 50.
On the NHS you have a choice of 1, drawn from a pool of competent surgeons, which is all you need.
If you want James Robertson Justice to do it personally because you think he is the best then you pay him.
Seems logical?
I'd like to choose my own surgeon thanks.
If you are mates with an anaesthetist at the hospital who is mates with the international superstar surgeon for the operation you want done, it can happen that you get sort of unofficially reallocated to that surgeon's NHS list. Allegedly.
No need for such subterfuge, just request it!
Indeed under the NHS it is your right under the NHS constitution:
I had a look at this - it's actually very well written. The bit about choice doesn't appear to extend to surgeons, unless it is referenced somewhere else?
I assume that includes the UK's economy (between 2.5 and 3 trillion euros). And does seem to neglect that America, and maybe China are bigger, even with the UK included.
I think most people on both sides are entirely reasonable, but I suspect the above line of thinking has many adherents in the Lords.
Indeed, rump EU is by a clear margin the third largest economy (especially if you count China by PPP). The notion that it is "by far" the largest is completely false.
If someone can't even comprehend that basic fact then everything that follows from such ignorance is flawed.
Suspect been shot and injured and being taken away in an ambulance. Police also been shot.
Hope his medical insurance is up to date....
Doesn't matter - if you present at ER they have to treat you regardless of insurance. One reason the ER is such an expense to hospitals.
I know...it was a joke. I think a large percentage of British public think that they wouldn't see you at ER without them first swiping your credit card.
Well, I for one don't understand the US Health system. A .
My guess is that your gaming friend received his treatment 'out of network'. When you do that, your co-pay is increased (depends on the policy) and there is no absolute cap on your responsibilities.
When my wife was diagnosed with cancer, we made sure all her providers were 'in-network' so her absolute cap is $2500. Which is just as well, as the chemo drugs came to around $20,000 per session.
Thanks for that Mr. T.. I have absolutely no idea what "in-network" means. However, if it is the difference between, to use your example, a maximum bill of $2,500 and an unlimited bill then I think something is very wrong.
Think of it like car insurers having approved repair centers. A real life example - my daughter on Obamacare needed her gall bladder removed. She had a choice of surgeons you could count on one hand. On my wife's policy the choice was almost 50.
On the NHS you have a choice of 1, drawn from a pool of competent surgeons, which is all you need.
If you want James Robertson Justice to do it personally because you think he is the best then you pay him.
Seems logical?
I'd like to choose my own surgeon thanks.
If you are mates with an anaesthetist at the hospital who is mates with the international superstar surgeon for the operation you want done, it can happen that you get sort of unofficially reallocated to that surgeon's NHS list. Allegedly.
No need for such subterfuge, just request it!
Indeed under the NHS it is your right under the NHS constitution:
I'm in Peru and haven't read a thread in yonks. But I'm surprised you're not (still?) discussing this. Merkel finally admits her refugee policy might have been an error.
I'll say. Possibly the greatest error in postwar German politics. Inter alia, it led fairly directly to Brexit.
It was more Blair's refusal to agree to a break in migration of Eastern Europeans to the UK in 2004 (unlike most other EU nations) which led to Brexit. Merkel's policy made it even more likely but was not the prime cause. However she is now seeing a significant move of CDU voters to the AfD too
I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but personally I was rather more concerned about the potential arrival of the Middle Eastern terrorists and rape gangs that Angela Merkel had invited into Europe than I was about Polish plumbers or Lithuanian fruit-pickers.
Any reason we might consider her views more important than (say) yours?
When the attitude of the French not to see their own failings on this I am not surprised ...
"A rising star French politician has demanded the UK take responsibility for detaining thousands of illegal immigrants currently stranded in Calais. Xavier Bertrand, a minister in successive French governments, wrote to David Cameron telling him to open a new detention centre at Dover for failed asylum seekers. He blamed British “security flaws” for encouraging waves of migrants to believe they could head for Calais in hope of crossing the channel.
"the border should now be moved to Dover, Bertrand goes on: “Controlling your southern border cannot be France’s sole responsibility"
This obviously completely ignores any of the reasons they are in France in the first place having crossed illegally and uncontrolled into and across France it's at times like this I know the leave decision was sadly right.
I assume that includes the UK's economy (between 2.5 and 3 trillion euros). And does seem to neglect that America, and maybe China are bigger, even with the UK included.
I think most people on both sides are entirely reasonable, but I suspect the above line of thinking has many adherents in the Lords.
More significant too is they do more trade with the UK than the UK does with the EU
Any reason we might consider her views more important than (say) yours?
When the attitude of the French not to see their own failings on this I am not surprised ...
"A rising star French politician has demanded the UK take responsibility for detaining thousands of illegal immigrants currently stranded in Calais. Xavier Bertrand, a minister in successive French governments, wrote to David Cameron telling him to open a new detention centre at Dover for failed asylum seekers. He blamed British “security flaws” for encouraging waves of migrants to believe they could head for Calais in hope of crossing the channel.
"the border should now be moved to Dover, Bertrand goes on: “Controlling your southern border cannot be France’s sole responsibility"
This obviously completely ignores any of the reasons they are in France in the first place having crossed illegally and uncontrolled into and across France it's at times like this I know the leave decision was sadly right.
If Sarkozy is UMP candidate and beats Le Pen that will be the French President's position unlike the present administration, though he will also take a much harder line on immigration than Hollande and maybe even take France out of Schengen
I assume that includes the UK's economy (between 2.5 and 3 trillion euros). And does seem to neglect that America, and maybe China are bigger, even with the UK included.
I think most people on both sides are entirely reasonable, but I suspect the above line of thinking has many adherents in the Lords.
More significant too is they do more trade with the UK than the UK does with the EU
I'm in Peru and haven't read a thread in yonks. But I'm surprised you're not (still?) discussing this. Merkel finally admits her refugee policy might have been an error.
I'll say. Possibly the greatest error in postwar German politics. Inter alia, it led fairly directly to Brexit.
It was more Blair's refusal to agree to a break in migration of Eastern Europeans to the UK in 2004 (unlike most other EU nations) which led to Brexit. Merkel's policy made it even more likely but was not the prime cause. However she is now seeing a significant move of CDU voters to the AfD too
I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but personally I was rather more concerned about the potential arrival of the Middle Eastern terrorists and rape gangs that Angela Merkel had invited into Europe than I was about Polish plumbers or Lithuanian fruit-pickers.
I was too (personally free movement did not bother me beyond security concerns about terrorism) but I am middle-class and voted Remain, not a working class Leave voting supermarket worker or construction worker who saw their wages undercut by Eastern European migrants
Clinton is asked by a journalist whether this weekend's attacks or incidents in the coming weeks are an attempt by ISIS or the Russians to help Trump...
I assume that includes the UK's economy (between 2.5 and 3 trillion euros). And does seem to neglect that America, and maybe China are bigger, even with the UK included.
I think most people on both sides are entirely reasonable, but I suspect the above line of thinking has many adherents in the Lords.
More significant too is they do more trade with the UK than the UK does with the EU
Proportionately however we have much more to lose
That depends entirely on the country, while that may be the case for Spain or Slovakia it is not the case for Germany or France
Indeed, it is all very tame. And Momentum will just continue to deny everything. Even though it is clear they are a party within a party and seeking to use intimidation, bullying and threats to secure their aims.
The 'low unemployment' is basically rather a lot of people on very low incomes who have seen their standard of living fall over the last 15 years.
I suppose Clinton can always tell them to eat Big Macs if they can't afford proper food.
"Since 2008, the labor participation rate has fallen from a high of 67.3% in 2000 to 62.6% today. That 62.2% represents a 38-year low, which puts Bloomberg’s claim of a 42-year-low in joblessness in perspective. The jobless number is “low” only because more people are no longer considered to be participating in the workforce."
One of the slightly bizarre facts is that labour participation rates have improved in Europe (except Greece) since the start of the Euro, whereas they've worsened in the US.
If life expectancy increases faster than the retirement age does it not stand to reason that the economically active percentage will fall? Or am I missing something?
If you look at the 16-65 participation rate in the US, that's fallen too.
Any reason we might consider her views more important than (say) yours?
When the attitude of the French not to see their own failings on this I am not surprised ...
"A rising star French politician has demanded the UK take responsibility for detaining thousands of illegal immigrants currently stranded in Calais. Xavier Bertrand, a minister in successive French governments, wrote to David Cameron telling him to open a new detention centre at Dover for failed asylum seekers. He blamed British “security flaws” for encouraging waves of migrants to believe they could head for Calais in hope of crossing the channel.
"the border should now be moved to Dover, Bertrand goes on: “Controlling your southern border cannot be France’s sole responsibility"
This obviously completely ignores any of the reasons they are in France in the first place having crossed illegally and uncontrolled into and across France it's at times like this I know the leave decision was sadly right.
If Sarkozy is UMP candidate and beats Le Pen that will be the French President's position unlike the present administration, though he will also take a much harder line on immigration than Hollande and maybe even take France out of Schengen
Ahem, Les Republicains, not UMP.
But (a) he won't be the LR candidate; and (b) he wouldn't take France out of Schengen if he did become President.
@DPJHodges: Just remember - even though you will see video tonight of Momentum plotting to deselect MPs, Momentum are not plotting to deselect MPs.
Indeed, though interesting that if Leadsom had won the Tory leadership Aaron Banks and the Leave.EU group would have tried to what Momentum is doing with the Tories. Corbyn will not be happy about Labour HQ being infiltrated and he being filmed undercover
Hmmm: a woman who backed Madoff (and handed over large quantities of her customers' money to him). Clearly someone who's views we should trust.
Much of the City and Wall Street was duped by Madoff, including the last firm my father worked for before he retired. Clearly they could have made more checks but he was very canny. As for Horlick, managing big City funds while bringing up 6 children (including one who sadly died of Leukaemia) is still a very rare feat
Hmmm: a woman who backed Madoff (and handed over large quantities of her customers' money to him). Clearly someone who's views we should trust.
Much of the City and Wall Street was duped by Madoff, including the last firm my father worked for before he retired. Clearly they could have made more checks but he was very canny. As for Horlick, managing big City funds while bringing up 6 children (including one who sadly died of Leukaemia) is still a very rare feat
I wonder whether she is indicative of a wider disillusion within the City with the Tories?
Any reason we might consider her views more important than (say) yours?
When the attitude of the French not to see their own failings on this I am not surprised ...
"A rising star French politician has demanded the UK take responsibility for detaining thousands of illegal immigrants currently stranded in Calais. Xavier Bertrand, a minister in successive French governments, wrote to David Cameron telling him to open a new detention centre at Dover for failed asylum seekers. He blamed British “security flaws” for encouraging waves of migrants to believe they could head for Calais in hope of crossing the channel.
"the border should now be moved to Dover, Bertrand goes on: “Controlling your southern border cannot be France’s sole responsibility"
This obviously completely ignores any of the reasons they are in France in the first place having crossed illegally and uncontrolled into and across France it's at times like this I know the leave decision was sadly right.
If Sarkozy is UMP candidate and beats Le Pen that will be the French President's position unlike the present administration, though he will also take a much harder line on immigration than Hollande and maybe even take France out of Schengen
Ahem, Les Republicains, not UMP.
But (a) he won't be the LR candidate; and (b) he wouldn't take France out of Schengen if he did become President.
I assume that includes the UK's economy (between 2.5 and 3 trillion euros). And does seem to neglect that America, and maybe China are bigger, even with the UK included.
I think most people on both sides are entirely reasonable, but I suspect the above line of thinking has many adherents in the Lords.
More significant too is they do more trade with the UK than the UK does with the EU
Collectively, yes, but not individually.
China is 5.7% of British exports, the US 11%.
As an aside, it is worth remembering that trade is conducted in real, not PPP, dollars. So, China is (currently) only about half the size of the EU ex-UK. And, if you look at China's imports, they're a relatively low percentage of GDP, and most of their imports are of commodities. See: http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/import/chn/all/show/2014/ to see what China imports. There's not a great overlap with UK exports, so it's not entirely clear where the easy gains would come from us substituting other people in the event of a free trade deal.
Hmmm: a woman who backed Madoff (and handed over large quantities of her customers' money to him). Clearly someone who's views we should trust.
Much of the City and Wall Street was duped by Madoff, including the last firm my father worked for before he retired. Clearly they could have made more checks but he was very canny. As for Horlick, managing big City funds while bringing up 6 children (including one who sadly died of Leukaemia) is still a very rare feat
Hmmm: a woman who backed Madoff (and handed over large quantities of her customers' money to him). Clearly someone who's views we should trust.
Much of the City and Wall Street was duped by Madoff, including the last firm my father worked for before he retired. Clearly they could have made more checks but he was very canny. As for Horlick, managing big City funds while bringing up 6 children (including one who sadly died of Leukaemia) is still a very rare feat
She did not manage big city funds.
She managed Morgan Grenfell's UK investment business, assets ultimately totalling £18 billion and then set up her own funds
Hmmm: a woman who backed Madoff (and handed over large quantities of her customers' money to him). Clearly someone who's views we should trust.
Much of the City and Wall Street was duped by Madoff, including the last firm my father worked for before he retired. Clearly they could have made more checks but he was very canny. As for Horlick, managing big City funds while bringing up 6 children (including one who sadly died of Leukaemia) is still a very rare feat
I wonder whether she is indicative of a wider disillusion within the City with the Tories?
Certainly much of the City will be hoping Hammond gets a fair hearing
Any reason we might consider her views more important than (say) yours?
When the attitude of the French not to see their own failings on this I am not surprised ...
"A rising star French politician has demanded the UK take responsibility for detaining thousands of illegal immigrants currently stranded in Calais. Xavier Bertrand, a minister in successive French governments, wrote to David Cameron telling him to open a new detention centre at Dover for failed asylum seekers. He blamed British “security flaws” for encouraging waves of migrants to believe they could head for Calais in hope of crossing the channel.
"the border should now be moved to Dover, Bertrand goes on: “Controlling your southern border cannot be France’s sole responsibility"
This obviously completely ignores any of the reasons they are in France in the first place having crossed illegally and uncontrolled into and across France it's at times like this I know the leave decision was sadly right.
Everyone, including PB commenters, is missing the point here. Which is why do these people want to come to the UK? Why would people choose a life of selling The Big Issue in the UK? It's the benefits system. We need to eliminate the pull factors. When we've done that, we can see how much of a jungle we're left with.
I assume that includes the UK's economy (between 2.5 and 3 trillion euros). And does seem to neglect that America, and maybe China are bigger, even with the UK included.
I think most people on both sides are entirely reasonable, but I suspect the above line of thinking has many adherents in the Lords.
More significant too is they do more trade with the UK than the UK does with the EU
Collectively, yes, but not individually.
China is 5.7% of British exports, the US 11%.
As an aside, it is worth remembering that trade is conducted in real, not PPP, dollars. So, China is (currently) only about half the size of the EU ex-UK. And, if you look at China's imports, they're a relatively low percentage of GDP, and most of their imports are of commodities. See: http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/import/chn/all/show/2014/ to see what China imports. There's not a great overlap with UK exports, so it's not entirely clear where the easy gains would come from us substituting other people in the event of a free trade deal.
We have a clear trade deficit with every EU country except Ireland. Yes we have a trade deficit with China too but we have a trade surplus with the US and Switzerland so it would make sense to focus out trade expansion efforts there first once we have left the EU and look at the Middle East, Australia, New Zealand, India and Canada too. Obviously we want a free trade deal of some sort but with full free movement a non-starter from the UK perspective that depends on the EU being willing to do a deal too https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/bulletins/uktrade/apr2016
Any reason we might consider her views more important than (say) yours?
When the attitude of the French not to see their own failings on this I am not surprised ...
"A rising star French politician has demanded the UK take responsibility for detaining thousands of illegal immigrants currently stranded in Calais. Xavier Bertrand, a minister in successive French governments, wrote to David Cameron telling him to open a new detention centre at Dover for failed asylum seekers. He blamed British “security flaws” for encouraging waves of migrants to believe they could head for Calais in hope of crossing the channel.
"the border should now be moved to Dover, Bertrand goes on: “Controlling your southern border cannot be France’s sole responsibility"
This obviously completely ignores any of the reasons they are in France in the first place having crossed illegally and uncontrolled into and across France it's at times like this I know the leave decision was sadly right.
Everyone, including PB commenters, is missing the point here. Which is why do these people want to come to the UK? Why would people choose a life of selling The Big Issue in the UK? It's the benefits system. We need to eliminate the pull factors. When we've done that, we can see how much of a jungle we're left with.
Alternatively we are a good nation to live in. Working even a minimum wage job provides a life far more secure than any they could get at home. Furthermore if they speak English already then its a big advantage to be in the UK. There is no way to eliminate those pull factors as they are good things we'd be insane to want to eliminate.
A very tiny fraction migrants once here actually sell the Big Issue. Even fewer probably planned on doing so.
Hmmm: a woman who backed Madoff (and handed over large quantities of her customers' money to him). Clearly someone who's views we should trust.
Much of the City and Wall Street was duped by Madoff, including the last firm my father worked for before he retired. Clearly they could have made more checks but he was very canny. As for Horlick, managing big City funds while bringing up 6 children (including one who sadly died of Leukaemia) is still a very rare feat
Nicola grossly over inflated her own role. MGAM was a great business built by a great team. It wasn't the work of one superwoman.
'Everyone, including PB commenters, is missing the point here. Which is why do these people want to come to the UK? Why would people choose a life of selling The Big Issue in the UK? It's the benefits system. We need to eliminate the pull factors. When we've done that, we can see how much of a jungle we're left with.'
Agree that's a big part of it,plus language, being able to live here in a parallel community and of course our International Health Servoce.
Any reason we might consider her views more important than (say) yours?
When the attitude of the French not to see their own failings on this I am not surprised ...
"A rising star French politician has demanded the UK take responsibility for detaining thousands of illegal immigrants currently stranded in Calais. Xavier Bertrand, a minister in successive French governments, wrote to David Cameron telling him to open a new detention centre at Dover for failed asylum seekers. He blamed British “security flaws” for encouraging waves of migrants to believe they could head for Calais in hope of crossing the channel.
"the border should now be moved to Dover, Bertrand goes on: “Controlling your southern border cannot be France’s sole responsibility"
This obviously completely ignores any of the reasons they are in France in the first place having crossed illegally and uncontrolled into and across France it's at times like this I know the leave decision was sadly right.
Everyone, including PB commenters, is missing the point here. Which is why do these people want to come to the UK? Why would people choose a life of selling The Big Issue in the UK? It's the benefits system. We need to eliminate the pull factors. When we've done that, we can see how much of a jungle we're left with.
Alternatively we are a good nation to live in. Working even a minimum wage job provides a life far more secure than any they could get at home. Furthermore if they speak English already then its a big advantage to be in the UK. There is no way to eliminate those pull factors as they are good things we'd be insane to want to eliminate.
A very tiny fraction migrants once here actually sell the Big Issue. Even fewer probably planned on doing so.
Don't be wilfully gauche. We can eliminate what we can eliminate. The point is that working a minimum wage job (and self employment, which is what selling The Big Issue is classed as), unlocks benefits such as working tax credits, child tax credits, and housing benefit, which is why so many do it.
Insurance companies now seem to have a rule which is not to pay out on the risks they have insured unless they really, really have to.
Yeah, I once complained to First Direct that they'd not handled a claim properly. They ignored it. I complained again. They ignored that too. Real life intervened and I dropped it, as they no doubt intended. The size of the amount wasn't worth (the time to pursue it) * (the probability of success).
That said, loss adjusters seem to have a fair amount of leeway. We once had a kitchen fire, and the adjuster suggested that we should claim not only for the smoke damage to the walls but for the marks on the ceiling. My wife said, "No, it's OK, they were there before." The adjuster said, "Well, up to you, but I think you can claim." (We didn't, but we were startled by the suggestion.)
This obviously completely ignores any of the reasons they are in France in the first place having crossed illegally and uncontrolled into and across France it's at times like this I know the leave decision was sadly right.
Everyone, including PB commenters, is missing the point here. Which is why do these people want to come to the UK? Why would people choose a life of selling The Big Issue in the UK? It's the benefits system. We need to eliminate the pull factors. When we've done that, we can see how much of a jungle we're left with.
Alternatively we are a good nation to live in. Working even a minimum wage job provides a life far more secure than any they could get at home. Furthermore if they speak English already then its a big advantage to be in the UK. There is no way to eliminate those pull factors as they are good things we'd be insane to want to eliminate.
A very tiny fraction migrants once here actually sell the Big Issue. Even fewer probably planned on doing so.
Don't be wilfully gauche. We can eliminate what we can eliminate. The point is that working a minimum wage job (and self employment, which is what selling The Big Issue is classed as), unlocks benefits such as working tax credits, child tax credits, and housing benefit, which is why so many do it.
The proportion of the benefits bill going to EU migrants is tiny compared to the proportion of the population they comprise.
I assume that includes the UK's economy (between 2.5 and 3 trillion euros). And does seem to neglect that America, and maybe China are bigger, even with the UK included.
I think most people on both sides are entirely reasonable, but I suspect the above line of thinking has many adherents in the Lords.
More significant too is they do more trade with the UK than the UK does with the EU
Collectively, yes, but not individually.
China is 5.7% of British exports, the US 11%.
As an aside, it is worth remembering that trade is conducted in real, not PPP, dollars. So, China is (currently) only about half the size of the EU ex-UK. And, if you look at China's imports, they're a relatively low percentage of GDP, and most of their imports are of commodities. See: http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/import/chn/all/show/2014/ to see what China imports. There's not a great overlap with UK exports, so it's not entirely clear where the easy gains would come from us substituting other people in the event of a free trade deal.
We have a clear trade deficit with every EU country except Ireland. Yes we have a trade deficit with China too but we have a trade surplus with the US and Switzerland so it would make sense to focus out trade expansion efforts there first once we have left the EU and look at the Middle East, Australia, New Zealand, India and Canada too. Obviously we want a free trade deal of some sort but with full free movement a non-starter from the UK perspective that depends on the EU being willing to do a deal too https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/bulletins/uktrade/apr2016
Our annual trade with the EU is worth about one hundred times that with Australia.
Insurance companies now seem to have a rule which is not to pay out on the risks they have insured unless they really, really have to.
Yeah, I once complained to First Direct that they'd not handled a claim properly. They ignored it. I complained again. They ignored that too. Real life intervened and I dropped it, as they no doubt intended. The size of the amount wasn't worth (the time to pursue it) * (the probability of success).
That said, loss adjusters seem to have a fair amount of leeway. We once had a kitchen fire, and the adjuster suggested that we should claim not only for the smoke damage to the walls but for the marks on the ceiling. My wife said, "No, it's OK, they were there before." The adjuster said, "Well, up to you, but I think you can claim." (We didn't, but we were startled by the suggestion.)
Loss Adjusters are supposed to be fair and are supposed to recommend settlement that puts the Insured in a position of indemnity - the position they were in before the loss. But you will pay any excess etc...
'Everyone, including PB commenters, is missing the point here. Which is why do these people want to come to the UK? Why would people choose a life of selling The Big Issue in the UK? It's the benefits system. We need to eliminate the pull factors. When we've done that, we can see how much of a jungle we're left with.'
Agree that's a big part of it,plus language, being able to live here in a parallel community and of course our International Health Servoce.
Labour could have resolved this but chose the opposite and just massively increased the number of claimants. If the Tories try to make any reductions. there are howls of derision.
We all know what the problem is but how do you resolve it?
Comments
Indeed under the NHS it is your right under the NHS constitution:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-nhs-constitution-for-england/the-nhs-constitution-for-england
Clone Bomber Harris if you really want to upset the Continentals. Double points from the PB League of Empire Loyalist as he was a Rhodesian too!
If someone can't even comprehend that basic fact then everything that follows from such ignorance is flawed.
"A rising star French politician has demanded the UK take responsibility for detaining thousands of illegal immigrants currently stranded in Calais. Xavier Bertrand, a minister in successive French governments, wrote to David Cameron telling him to open a new detention centre at Dover for failed asylum seekers. He blamed British “security flaws” for encouraging waves of migrants to believe they could head for Calais in hope of crossing the channel.
"the border should now be moved to Dover, Bertrand goes on: “Controlling your southern border cannot be France’s sole responsibility"
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/french-politician-blames-british-security-flaws-for-calais-migrants-crisis-10393452.html
This obviously completely ignores any of the reasons they are in France in the first place having crossed illegally and uncontrolled into and across France
it's at times like this I know the leave decision was sadly right.
Oh wait ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QAWEWiL6Xs
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/city-superwoman-nicola-horlick-backs-lib-dems-to-battle-against-brexit-a3348396.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12156177/momentum-activists-jeremy-corbyn-labour-purge.html
But (a) he won't be the LR candidate; and (b) he wouldn't take France out of Schengen if he did become President.
http://europeanpost.co/nicolas-sarkozy-les-republicains-epp-schengen-is-dead/
China is 5.7% of British exports, the US 11%.
As an aside, it is worth remembering that trade is conducted in real, not PPP, dollars. So, China is (currently) only about half the size of the EU ex-UK. And, if you look at China's imports, they're a relatively low percentage of GDP, and most of their imports are of commodities. See: http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/import/chn/all/show/2014/ to see what China imports. There's not a great overlap with UK exports, so it's not entirely clear where the easy gains would come from us substituting other people in the event of a free trade deal.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/bulletins/uktrade/apr2016
A very tiny fraction migrants once here actually sell the Big Issue. Even fewer probably planned on doing so.
'Everyone, including PB commenters, is missing the point here. Which is why do these people want to come to the UK? Why would people choose a life of selling The Big Issue in the UK? It's the benefits system. We need to eliminate the pull factors. When we've done that, we can see how much of a jungle we're left with.'
Agree that's a big part of it,plus language, being able to live here in a parallel community and of course our International Health Servoce.
That said, loss adjusters seem to have a fair amount of leeway. We once had a kitchen fire, and the adjuster suggested that we should claim not only for the smoke damage to the walls but for the marks on the ceiling. My wife said, "No, it's OK, they were there before." The adjuster said, "Well, up to you, but I think you can claim." (We didn't, but we were startled by the suggestion.)
We all know what the problem is but how do you resolve it?