I've now decided to stop betting on politics. It just seems wrong. And that after many years of enjoying the odd flutter. I can't carry on betting on politics when the stakes are so high- when we have loonies like Trump, Corbyn, Le Pen, Grillo etc.... It doesn't seem right. Politics is no longer a harmless past time for betting purposes.
I have substantial funds invested in currencies, equities and so forth, and I have to put up with politicians playing fast and loose with my investments for their own political ends. Cameron's EU vote, something he did to save his bacon (no other good reason), has already cost me many thousands. Enough is enough.
I'm really not that interested in money to enjoy winning it. And I've already accumulated enough wealth for my own lifetime......
Genuine question, how wide is the circulation of the morning star? I have this vision it is only available in London, but I assume even discounting online it must have slightly wider reach. Socialism has some fans in places other than the capital, I presume.
It concludes the current system for paying providers "is not fit-for-purpose as it does not incentivise the right behaviours needed for joined-up healthcare services
Report summary The financial health of NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts has significantly worsened in the last three financial years. Trusts had a net deficit of £843 million in 2014–15, which is a severe decline from trusts' £91 million deficit in 2013–14, and £592 million surplus in 2012–13.
Trusts' finances look set to deteriorate further—halfway through 2015–16 three quarters of trusts had a deficit, and their total overspend could rise to around £2.5 billion.
The Department, NHS England and NHS Improvement have not taken action soon enough to keep trusts in financial balance. The target for trusts to make 4% efficiency savings across the board is unrealistic and better data is needed for more informed savings and efficiency targets.
Current system "not fit-for-purpose" Failings in the system for paying providers need to be addressed as a matter of urgency, with NHS Improvement and NHS England acknowledging that the current system is not fit-for-purpose as it does not incentivise the right behaviours needed for joined-up healthcare services.
Spending on agency staff has contributed to trusts' financial distress, and action to tackle this problem is welcome, albeit late. The NHS will not solve the problem of reliance on agency staff until it solves its wider workforce planning issues.
We recognise the immense challenge of achieving financial and service sustainability when demand is rising and budgets are tight, and acknowledge the ongoing efforts of NHS England and NHS Improvement to find solutions. But there is much to do to produce the convincing plan necessary for the NHS to get itself back into financial balance.
So, in spite of a record budget the "Envy of the World" is still crap , and "one of the worst healthcare systems in the advanced world" ((c) OECD)?
Never trust the Tories with the NHS
Never the fault of the large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation that it is a large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation, is it?
Based on my last hospital experience, our monthly BUPA payment is money well spent.
Osborne will admit he has broken 2 out of the 3 fiscal rules he set down after last year’s election #Budget2016 htps://next.ft.com/content/f311157e-ead6-11e5-888e-2eadd5fbc4a4#ixzz430RzZJBm …
Thank goodness he didn't set any more rules, I'm sure they'd have been broken too.
It concludes the current system for paying providers "is not fit-for-purpose as it does not incentivise the right behaviours needed for joined-up healthcare services
Report summary The financial health of NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts has significantly worsened in the last three financial years. Trusts had a net deficit of £843 million in 2014–15, which is a severe decline from trusts' £91 million deficit in 2013–14, and £592 million surplus in 2012–13.
Trusts' finances look set to deteriorate further—halfway through 2015–16 three quarters of trusts had a deficit, and their total overspend could rise to around £2.5 billion.
The Department, NHS England and NHS Improvement have not taken action soon enough to keep trusts in financial balance. The target for trusts to make 4% efficiency savings across the board is unrealistic and better data is needed for more informed savings and efficiency targets.
Current system "not fit-for-purpose" Failings in the system for paying providers need to be addressed as a matter of urgency, with NHS Improvement and NHS England acknowledging that the current system is not fit-for-purpose as it does not incentivise the right behaviours needed for joined-up healthcare services.
Spending on agency staff has contributed to trusts' financial distress, and action to tackle this problem is welcome, albeit late. The NHS will not solve the problem of reliance on agency staff until it solves its wider workforce planning issues.
We recognise the immense challenge of achieving financial and service sustainability when demand is rising and budgets are tight, and acknowledge the ongoing efforts of NHS England and NHS Improvement to find solutions. But there is much to do to produce the convincing plan necessary for the NHS to get itself back into financial balance.
So, in spite of a record budget the "Envy of the World" is still crap , and "one of the worst healthcare systems in the advanced world" ((c) OECD)?
Never trust the Tories with the NHS
Never the fault of the large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation that it is a large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation, is it?
Based on my last hospital experience, our monthly BUPA payment is money well spent.
Good for you. You are a clever boy.
Try running for Parliament on that ticket see how you get on
North Carolina, target 29 - could overperform that Illinois, target 39 - will be about that
Not fatal as long as Rubio either drops out or becomes irrelevant.
It is fatal in terms of narrative and underperformance for Trump. Being at least 70 delegates off pace that will grow to around 100 by the time N.Y. votes makes it a close certainty that Trump won't get a majority of delegates.
It concludes the current system for paying providers "is not fit-for-purpose as it does not incentivise the right behaviours needed for joined-up healthcare services
Report summary The financial health of NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts has significantly worsened in the last three financial years. Trusts had a net deficit of £843 million in 2014–15, which is a severe decline from trusts' £91 million deficit in 2013–14, and £592 million surplus in 2012–13.
Trusts' finances look set to deteriorate further—halfway through 2015–16 three quarters of trusts had a deficit, and their total overspend could rise to around £2.5 billion.
The Department, NHS England and NHS Improvement have not taken action soon enough to keep trusts in financial balance. The target for trusts to make 4% efficiency savings across the board is unrealistic and better data is needed for more informed savings and efficiency targets.
Current system "not fit-for-purpose" Failings in the system for paying providers need to be addressed as a matter of urgency, with NHS Improvement and NHS England acknowledging that the current system is not fit-for-purpose as it does not incentivise the right behaviours needed for joined-up healthcare services.
Spending on agency staff has contributed to trusts' financial distress, and action to tackle this problem is welcome, albeit late. The NHS will not solve the problem of reliance on agency staff until it solves its wider workforce planning issues.
We recognise the immense challenge of achieving financial and service sustainability when demand is rising and budgets are tight, and acknowledge the ongoing efforts of NHS England and NHS Improvement to find solutions. But there is much to do to produce the convincing plan necessary for the NHS to get itself back into financial balance.
So, in spite of a record budget the "Envy of the World" is still crap , and "one of the worst healthcare systems in the advanced world" ((c) OECD)?
Never trust the Tories with the NHS
Never the fault of the large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation that it is a large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation, is it?
Based on my last hospital experience, our monthly BUPA payment is money well spent.
Try and claim from them for any condition lasting more than a few weeks! They wriggle out of cover on whatever they can. They are the worst of all the Medical Insurance Companies.
Politics is no longer a harmless past time for betting purposes.
Each to their own of course, but not betting on it won't stop the loonies. They rise because there is a demand for them, and clearly there will continue to be such a demand until we learn a lesson about the consequences of supporting them (since our current elites seem incapable of addressing the issues that cause their rise) - so things will get worse before they get better no matter what we (presumably) not loony people do.
Politics is still a theatrical game as far as I see it - most 'revolutionary' upstart new parties and individuals are not as revolutionary as they claim, so I'm not even convinced things are as different as some people think, even with the rise of new parties and outsider candidates.
North Carolina, target 29 - could overperform that Illinois, target 39 - will be about that
Not fatal as long as Rubio either drops out or becomes irrelevant.
It is fatal in terms of narrative and underperformance for Trump. Being at least 70 delegates off pace that will grow to around 100 by the time N.Y. votes makes it a close certainty that Trump won't get a majority of delegates.
What odds will you give me on "a close certainty"?
North Carolina, target 29 - could overperform that Illinois, target 39 - will be about that
Not fatal as long as Rubio either drops out or becomes irrelevant.
It is fatal in terms of narrative and underperformance for Trump. Being at least 70 delegates off pace that will grow to around 100 by the time N.Y. votes makes it a close certainty that Trump won't get a majority of delegates.
But Trump was "finished" after the Michigan debate iirc.
It concludes the current system for paying providers "is not fit-for-purpose as it does not incentivise the right behaviours needed for joined-up healthcare services
Report summary The financial health of NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts has significantly worsened in the last three financial years. Trusts had a net deficit of £843 million in 2014–15, which is a severe decline from trusts' £91 million deficit in 2013–14, and £592 million surplus in 2012–13.
Trusts' finances look set to deteriorate further—halfway through 2015–16 three quarters of trusts had a deficit, and their total overspend could rise to around £2.5 billion.
The Department, NHS England and NHS Improvement have not taken action soon enough to keep trusts in financial balance. The target for trusts to make 4% efficiency savings across the board is unrealistic and better data is needed for more informed savings and efficiency targets.
Current system "not fit-for-purpose" Failings in the system for paying providers need to be addressed as a matter of urgency, with NHS Improvement and NHS England acknowledging that the current system is not fit-for-purpose as it does not incentivise the right behaviours needed for joined-up healthcare services.
Spending on agency staff has contributed to trusts' financial distress, and action to tackle this problem is welcome, albeit late. The NHS will not solve the problem of reliance on agency staff until it solves its wider workforce planning issues.
We recognise the immense challenge of achieving financial and service sustainability when demand is rising and budgets are tight, and acknowledge the ongoing efforts of NHS England and NHS Improvement to find solutions. But there is much to do to produce the convincing plan necessary for the NHS to get itself back into financial balance.
So, in spite of a record budget the "Envy of the World" is still crap , and "one of the worst healthcare systems in the advanced world" ((c) OECD)?
Never trust the Tories with the NHS
Never the fault of the large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation that it is a large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation, is it?
...snip...
Run by incompetent bureaucrats who scuttle off into retirement at the earliest opportunity.
Hard to disagree re health insurance. The NHS nearly killed a family member a couple of months ago; private intervention saved them.
It concludes the current system for paying providers "is not fit-for-purpose as it does not incentivise the right behaviours needed for joined-up healthcare services
Report summary The financial health of NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts has significantly worsened in the last three financial years. Trusts had a net deficit of £843 million in 2014–15, which is a severe decline from trusts' £91 million deficit in 2013–14, and £592 million surplus in 2012–13.
Trusts' finances look set to deteriorate further—halfway through 2015–16 three quarters of trusts had a deficit, and their total overspend could rise to around £2.5 billion.
The Department, NHS England and NHS Improvement have not taken action soon enough to keep trusts in financial balance. The target for trusts to make 4% efficiency savings across the board is unrealistic and better data is needed for more informed savings and efficiency targets.
Current system "not fit-for-purpose" Failings in the system for paying providers need to be addressed as a matter of urgency, with NHS Improvement and NHS England acknowledging that the current system is not fit-for-purpose as it does not incentivise the right behaviours needed for joined-up healthcare services.
Spending on agency staff has contributed to trusts' financial distress, and action to tackle this problem is welcome, albeit late. The NHS will not solve the problem of reliance on agency staff until it solves its wider workforce planning issues.
We recognise the immense challenge of achieving financial and service sustainability when demand is rising and budgets are tight, and acknowledge the ongoing efforts of NHS England and NHS Improvement to find solutions. But there is much to do to produce the convincing plan necessary for the NHS to get itself back into financial balance.
So, in spite of a record budget the "Envy of the World" is still crap , and "one of the worst healthcare systems in the advanced world" ((c) OECD)?
Never trust the Tories with the NHS
Never the fault of the large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation that it is a large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation, is it?
Based on my last hospital experience, our monthly BUPA payment is money well spent.
Good for you. You are a clever boy.
Try running for Parliament on that ticket see how you get on
That it is socially responsible for those who can afford it to provide for themselves and their families, thereby also freeing up the state service for those that cant?
It concludes the current system for paying providers "is not fit-for-purpose as it does not incentivise the right behaviours needed for joined-up healthcare services
Report summary The financial health of NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts has significantly worsened in the last three financial years. Trusts had a net deficit of £843 million in 2014–15, which is a severe decline from trusts' £91 million deficit in 2013–14, and £592 million surplus in 2012–13.
Trusts' finances look set to deteriorate further—halfway through 2015–16 three quarters of trusts had a deficit, and their total overspend could rise to around £2.5 billion.
The Department, NHS England and NHS Improvement have not taken action soon enough to keep trusts in financial balance. The target for trusts to make 4% efficiency savings across the board is unrealistic and better data is needed for more informed savings and efficiency targets.
Current system "not fit-for-purpose" Failings in the system for paying providers need to be addressed as a matter of urgency, with NHS Improvement and NHS England acknowledging that the current system is not fit-for-purpose as it does not incentivise the right behaviours needed for joined-up healthcare services.
Spending on agency staff has contributed to trusts' financial distress, and action to tackle this problem is welcome, albeit late. The NHS will not solve the problem of reliance on agency staff until it solves its wider workforce planning issues.
We recognise the immense challenge of achieving financial and service sustainability when demand is rising and budgets are tight, and acknowledge the ongoing efforts of NHS England and NHS Improvement to find solutions. But there is much to do to produce the convincing plan necessary for the NHS to get itself back into financial balance.
So, in spite of a record budget the "Envy of the World" is still crap , and "one of the worst healthcare systems in the advanced world" ((c) OECD)?
Never trust the Tories with the NHS
Never the fault of the large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation that it is a large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation, is it?
Based on my last hospital experience, our monthly BUPA payment is money well spent.
Try and claim from them for any condition lasting more than a few weeks! They wriggle out of cover on whatever they can. They are the worst of all the Medical Insurance Companies.
Utter bollocks.
I'm a PMI broker and I can tell you these companies are excellent when you need them, with oncology nurses, long term support etc
Genuine question, how wide is the circulation of the morning star? I have this vision it is only available in London, but I assume even discounting online it must have slightly wider reach. Socialism has some fans in places other than the capital, I presume.
I often see it on sale in newsagents here in West Central Scotland.
North Carolina, target 29 - could overperform that Illinois, target 39 - will be about that
Not fatal as long as Rubio either drops out or becomes irrelevant.
It is fatal in terms of narrative and underperformance for Trump. Being at least 70 delegates off pace that will grow to around 100 by the time N.Y. votes makes it a close certainty that Trump won't get a majority of delegates.
What odds will you give me on "a close certainty"?
Well he looks like he will finish around 50 delegates short of 1237 +- 75. If of course he does badly in Missouri and Illinois.
In the last weeks, I've just gone through seeing my mum dying on a NHS ward in truly horrific circumstances. And you know something, I could not have wished for better, more caring treatment from such caring staff. And this was in Blackpool Victoria. To be honest I doubt BUPA, or any other private hospital in the world could have given my mum better care and dignity in these last days.
It concludes the current system for paying providers "is not fit-for-purpose as it does not incentivise the right behaviours needed for joined-up healthcare services
Report summary The financial health of NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts has significantly worsened in the last three financial years. Trusts had a net deficit of £843 million in 2014–15, which is a severe decline from trusts' £91 million deficit in 2013–14, and £592 million surplus in 2012–13.
Trusts' finances look set to deteriorate further—halfway through 2015–16 three quarters of trusts had a deficit, and their total overspend could rise to around £2.5 billion.
The Department, NHS England and NHS Improvement have not taken action soon enough to keep trusts in financial balance. The target for trusts to make 4% efficiency savings across the board is unrealistic and better data is needed for more informed savings and efficiency targets.
Current system "not fit-for-purpose" Failings in the system for paying providers need to be addressed as a matter of urgency, with NHS Improvement and NHS England acknowledging that the current system is not fit-for-purpose as it does not incentivise the right behaviours needed for joined-up healthcare services.
Spending on agency staff has contributed to trusts' financial distress, and action to tackle this problem is welcome, albeit late. The NHS will not solve the problem of reliance on agency staff until it solves its wider workforce planning issues.
We recognise the immense challenge of achieving financial and service sustainability when demand is rising and budgets are tight, and acknowledge the ongoing efforts of NHS England and NHS Improvement to find solutions. But there is much to do to produce the convincing plan necessary for the NHS to get itself back into financial balance.
So, in spite of a record budget the "Envy of the World" is still crap , and "one of the worst healthcare systems in the advanced world" ((c) OECD)?
Never trust the Tories with the NHS
Never the fault of the large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation that it is a large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation, is it?
Based on my last hospital experience, our monthly BUPA payment is money well spent.
North Carolina, target 29 - could overperform that Illinois, target 39 - will be about that
Not fatal as long as Rubio either drops out or becomes irrelevant.
It is fatal in terms of narrative and underperformance for Trump. Being at least 70 delegates off pace that will grow to around 100 by the time N.Y. votes makes it a close certainty that Trump won't get a majority of delegates.
But Trump was "finished" after the Michigan debate iirc.
Based on the growth of the opposition to Doctor strikes, I wonder if it would be worth a thread header hypothetically exploring the idea that the NHS is no longer the third rail of British politics come the next election.
That would be something worth seeing. Labour on 125 seats?
In the last weeks, I've just gone through seeing my mum dying on a NHS ward in truly horrific circumstances. And you know something, I could not have wished for better, more caring treatment from such caring staff. And this was in Blackpool Victoria. To be honest I doubt BUPA, or any other private hospital in the world could have given my mum better care and dignity in these last days.
It concludes the current system for paying providers "is not fit-for-purpose as it does not incentivise the right behaviours needed for joined-up healthcare ...
Report summary The financial health of NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts has significantly worsened in the last three financial years. Trusts had a net deficit of £843 million in 2014–15, which is a severe decline from trusts' £91 million deficit in 2013–14, and £592 million surplus in 2012–13.
Trusts' finances look set to deteriorate further—halfway through 2015–16 three quarters of trusts had a deficit, and their total overspend could rise to around £2.5 billion.
The Department, NHS England and NHS Improvement have not taken action soon enough to keep trusts in financial balance. The target for trusts to make 4% efficiency savings across the board is unrealistic and better data is needed for more informed savings and efficiency targets.
Current system "not fit-for-purpose" Failings in the system for paying providers need to be addressed as a matter of urgency, with NHS Improvement and NHS England acknowledging that the current system is not fit-for-purpose as it does not incentivise the right behaviours needed for joined-up healthcare services.
Spending on agency staff has contributed to trusts' financial distress, and action to tackle this problem is welcome, albeit late. The NHS will not solve the problem of reliance on agency staff until it solves its wider workforce planning issues.
We recognise the immense challenge of achieving financial and service sustainability when demand is rising and budgets are tight, and acknowledge the ongoing efforts of NHS England and NHS Improvement to find solutions. But there is much to do to produce the convincing plan necessary for the NHS to get itself back into financial balance.
So, in spite of a record budget the "Envy of the World" is still crap , and "one of the worst healthcare systems in the advanced world" ((c) OECD)?
Never trust the Tories with the NHS
Never the fault of the large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation that it is a large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation, is it?
Based on my last hospital experience, our monthly BUPA payment is money well spent.
You have no idea just how repulsive I find your mentality.
I'm going to a dear relatives funeral next week. The NHS missed the fact she had a fractured spine.
Well I am sorry about that but if you have not noticed I care passionately about the state of the NHS and the quality of care it provides you have not been looking very hard.
Just maybe the financial state the Acute hospitals of the NHS may have contributed to what sounds like a tragically poor standard of care
IMO Lansley is primarily responsible for the sudden deterioration of Acute finances due to his Conflict of interest reforms. The PAC is only saying what I have been posting for 3 years on here.
You have no idea just how repulsive I find your mentality.
I'm going to a dear relatives funeral next week. The NHS missed the fact she had a fractured spine.
Well I am sorry about that but if you have not noticed I care passionately about the state of the NHS and the quality of care it provides you have not been looking very hard.
[snip]
The PAC is only saying what I have been posting for 3 years on here.
North Carolina, target 29 - could overperform that Illinois, target 39 - will be about that
Not fatal as long as Rubio either drops out or becomes irrelevant.
It is fatal in terms of narrative and underperformance for Trump. Being at least 70 delegates off pace that will grow to around 100 by the time N.Y. votes makes it a close certainty that Trump won't get a majority of delegates.
What odds will you give me on "a close certainty"?
Well he looks like he will finish around 50 delegates short of 1237 +- 75. If of course he does badly in Missouri and Illinois.
Scrapping bursary saves £880mn but it reduces nurse supply & increases NHS reliance on agencies. Last years agency spend was £4bn in 2010 it was £0.4bn
Is part of that cost people retiring ludicrously early and then rehired at exorbitant rates?
In the last weeks, I've just gone through seeing my mum dying on a NHS ward in truly horrific circumstances. And you know something, I could not have wished for better, more caring treatment from such caring staff. And this was in Blackpool Victoria. To be honest I doubt BUPA, or any other private hospital in the world could have given my mum better care and dignity in these last days.
Trusts' finances look set to deteriorate further—halfway through 2015–16 three quarters of trusts had a deficit, and their total overspend could rise to around £2.5 billion.
The Department, NHS England and NHS Improvement have not taken action soon enough to keep trusts in financial balance. The target for trusts to make 4% efficiency savings across the board is unrealistic and better data is needed for more informed savings and efficiency targets.
Current system "not fit-for-purpose" Failings in the system for paying providers need to be addressed as a matter of urgency, with NHS Improvement and NHS England acknowledging that the current system is not fit-for-purpose as it does not incentivise the right behaviours needed for joined-up healthcare services.
Spending on agency staff has contributed to trusts' financial distress, and action to tackle this problem is welcome, albeit late. The NHS will not solve the problem of reliance on agency staff until it solves its wider workforce planning issues.
We recognise the immense challenge of achieving financial and service sustainability when demand is rising and budgets are tight, and acknowledge the ongoing efforts of NHS England and NHS Improvement to find solutions. But there is much to do to produce the convincing plan necessary for the NHS to get itself back into financial balance.
So, in spite of a record budget the "Envy of the World" is still crap , and "one of the worst healthcare systems in the advanced world" ((c) OECD)?
Never trust the Tories with the NHS
Never the fault of the large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation that it is a large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation, is it?
Based on my last hospital experience, our monthly BUPA payment is money well spent.
You were lucky. Remember Stafford?
I watched a close relative come near to death thanks to appallingly poor care at hands of the NHS. Has it not been for private intervention they would not be alive today.
Kasich's odds to back him on Betfair are currently 9.4, i.e. 8/1 in old money net of commission, yet 2 or 3 days ago he was twice these odds. Does the wider betting fraternity know something we PBers don't?
In the last weeks, I've just gone through seeing my mum dying on a NHS ward in truly horrific circumstances. And you know something, I could not have wished for better, more caring treatment from such caring staff. And this was in Blackpool Victoria. To be honest I doubt BUPA, or any other private hospital in the world could have given my mum better care and dignity in these last days.
Trusts' finances look set to deteriorate further—halfway through 2015–16 three quarters of trusts had a deficit, and their total overspend could rise to around £2.5 billion.
The Department, NHS England and NHS Improvement have not taken action soon enough to keep trusts in financial balance. The target for trusts to make 4% efficiency savings across the board is unrealistic and better data is needed for more informed savings and efficiency targets.
Current system "not fit-for-purpose" Failings in the system for paying providers need to be addressed as a matter of urgency, with NHS Improvement and NHS England acknowledging that the current system is not fit-for-purpose as it does not incentivise the right behaviours needed for joined-up healthcare services.
Spending on agency staff has contributed to trusts' financial distress, and action to tackle this problem is welcome, albeit late. The NHS will not solve the problem of reliance on agency staff until it solves its wider workforce planning issues.
We recognise the immense challenge of achieving financial and service sustainability when demand is rising and budgets are tight, and acknowledge the ongoing efforts of NHS England and NHS Improvement to find solutions. But there is much to do to produce the convincing plan necessary for the NHS to get itself back into financial balance.
So, in spite of a record budget the "Envy of the World" is still crap , and "one of the worst healthcare systems in the advanced world" ((c) OECD)?
Never trust the Tories with the NHS
Never the fault of the large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation that it is a large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation, is it?
Based on my last hospital experience, our monthly BUPA payment is money well spent.
You were lucky. Remember Stafford?
I watched a close relative come near to death thanks to appallingly poor care at hands of the NHS. Has it not been for private intervention they would not be alive today.
North Carolina, target 29 - could overperform that Illinois, target 39 - will be about that
Not fatal as long as Rubio either drops out or becomes irrelevant.
It is fatal in terms of narrative and underperformance for Trump. Being at least 70 delegates off pace that will grow to around 100 by the time N.Y. votes makes it a close certainty that Trump won't get a majority of delegates.
What odds will you give me on "a close certainty"?
Well he looks like he will finish around 50 delegates short of 1237 +- 75. If of course he does badly in Missouri and Illinois.
Your own margin of error says he could win!!
Fifty delegates is nothing.
He is staring to fall under his targets though, it's possible that Trump may overcome that deficit but it looks more and more difficult.
His margin of victory in N.Y. and California will have to increase which each state he falls under target.
Based on the growth of the opposition to Doctor strikes, I wonder if it would be worth a thread header hypothetically exploring the idea that the NHS is no longer the third rail of British politics come the next election.
I agree with Tyson although is his polite request even physically possible
In the last weeks, I've just gone through seeing my mum dying on a NHS ward in truly horrific circumstances. And you know something, I could not have wished for better, more caring treatment from such caring staff. And this was in Blackpool Victoria. To be honest I doubt BUPA, or any other private hospital in the world could have given my mum better care and dignity in these last days.
Trusts' finances look set to deteriorate further—halfway through 2015–16 three quarters of trusts had a deficit, and their total overspend could rise to around £2.5 billion.
The Department, NHS England and NHS Improvement have not taken action soon enough to keep trusts in financial balance. The target for trusts to make 4% efficiency savings across the board is unrealistic and better data is needed for more informed savings and efficiency targets.
Current system "not fit-for-purpose" Failings in the system for paying providers need to be addressed as a matter of urgency, with NHS Improvement and NHS England acknowledging that the current system is not fit-for-purpose as it does not incentivise the right behaviours needed for joined-up healthcare services.
Spending on agency staff has contributed to trusts' financial distress, and action to tackle this problem is welcome, albeit late. The NHS will not solve the problem of reliance on agency staff until it solves its wider workforce planning issues.
We recognise the immense challenge of achieving financial and service sustainability when demand is rising and budgets are tight, and acknowledge the ongoing efforts of NHS England and NHS Improvement to find solutions. But there is much to do to produce the convincing plan necessary for the NHS to get itself back into financial balance.
So, in spite of a record budget the "Envy of the World" is still crap , and "one of the worst healthcare systems in the advanced world" ((c) OECD)?
Never trust the Tories with the NHS
Never the fault of the large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation that it is a large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation, is it?
Based on my last hospital experience, our monthly BUPA payment is money well spent.
You were lucky. Remember Stafford?
I watched a close relative come near to death thanks to appallingly poor care at hands of the NHS. Has it not been for private intervention they would not be alive today.
Get back to whining about your money, and pontificating about how politics isn't fun anymore.
Kasich's odds to back him on Betfair are currently 9.4, i.e. 8/1 in old money net of commission, yet 2 or 3 days ago he was twice these odds. Does the wider betting fraternity know something we PBers don't?
Throughout this campaign, for three months, Not Trump has been too long. It's shifted through Cruz, Rubio and now Kasich - but it's equally wrong. Even Speedy thinks Trump will finish up just 50 delegates short - they won't rob Trump of that at the Convention.
In the last weeks, I've just gone through seeing my mum dying on a NHS ward in truly horrific circumstances. And you know something, I could not have wished for better, more caring treatment from such caring staff. And this was in Blackpool Victoria. To be honest I doubt BUPA, or any other private hospital in the world could have given my mum better care and dignity in these last days.
Trusts' finances look set to deteriorate further—halfway through 2015–16 three quarters of trusts had a deficit, and their total overspend could rise to around £2.5 billion.
The Department, NHS England and NHS Improvement have not taken action soon enough to keep trusts in financial balance. The target for trusts to make 4% efficiency savings across the board is unrealistic and better data is needed for more informed savings and efficiency targets.
Current system "not fit-for-purpose" Failings in the system for paying providers need to be addressed as a matter of urgency, with NHS Improvement and NHS England acknowledging that the current system is not fit-for-purpose as it does not incentivise the right behaviours needed for joined-up healthcare services.
Spending on agency staff has contributed to trusts' financial distress, and action to tackle this problem is welcome, albeit late. The NHS will not solve the problem of reliance on agency staff until it solves its wider workforce planning issues.
We recognise the immense challenge of achieving financial and service sustainability when demand is rising and budgets are tight, and acknowledge the ongoing efforts of NHS England and NHS Improvement to find solutions. But there is much to do to produce the convincing plan necessary for the NHS to get itself back into financial balance.
So, in spite of a record budget the "Envy of the World" is still crap , and "one of the worst healthcare systems in the advanced world" ((c) OECD)?
Never trust the Tories with the NHS
Never the fault of the large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation that it is a large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation, is it?
Based on my last hospital experience, our monthly BUPA payment is money well spent.
You were lucky. Remember Stafford?
I watched a close relative come near to death thanks to appallingly poor care at hands of the NHS. Has it not been for private intervention they would not be alive today.
It concludes the current system for paying providers "is not fit-for-purpose as it does not incentivise the right behaviours needed for joined-up healthcare services
Report summary The financial health of NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts has significantly worsened in the last three financial years. Trusts had a net deficit of £843 million in 2014–15, which is a severe decline from trusts' £91 million deficit in 2013–14, and £592 million surplus in 2012–13.
Trusts' finances look set to deteriorate further—halfway through 2015–16 three quarters of trusts had a deficit, and their total overspend could rise to around £2.5 billion.
The Department, NHS England and NHS Improvement have not taken action soon enough to keep trusts in financial balance. The target for trusts to make 4% efficiency savings across the board is unrealistic and better data is needed for more informed savings and efficiency targets.
Current system "not fit-for-purpose" Failings in the system for paying providers need to be addressed as a matter of urgency, with NHS Improvement and NHS England acknowledging that the current system is not fit-for-purpose as it does not incentivise the right behaviours needed for joined-up healthcare services.
Spending on agency staff has contributed to trusts' financial distress, and action to tackle this problem is welcome, albeit late. The NHS will not solve the problem of reliance on agency staff until it solves its
So, in spite of a record budget the "Envy of the World" is still crap , and "one of the worst healthcare systems in the advanced world" ((c) OECD)?
Never trust the Tories with the NHS
Never the fault of the large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation that it is a large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation, is it?
Based on my last hospital experience, our monthly BUPA payment is money well spent.
Try and claim from them for any condition lasting more than a few weeks! They wriggle out of cover on whatever they can. They are the worst of all the Medical Insurance Companies.
Utter bollocks.
I'm a PMI broker and I can tell you these companies are excellent when you need them, with oncology nurses, long term support etc
Bollocks. BUPA are amongst the worst for shortfalling patients or refusing cover. They may well pay brokers well!
I would recommend Exeter Friendly, or for those on a budget, Benenden. There are a number of good alternatives to BUPA.
Scrapping bursary saves £880mn but it reduces nurse supply & increases NHS reliance on agencies. Last years agency spend was £4bn in 2010 it was £0.4bn
Is part of that cost people retiring ludicrously early and then rehired at exorbitant rates?
Just maybe the financial state the Acute hospitals of the NHS may have contributed to what sounds like a tragically poor standard of care
Like:
a) My wife leaving A and E with a foot ache that was a broken ankle that they had missed in 2005; b) My mother in law having routine surgery that ended in a six month coma in 2006; c) Like me receiving calls about my mum's 'risk assessments' on the day I buried her in 2010;
Based on the growth of the opposition to Doctor strikes, I wonder if it would be worth a thread header hypothetically exploring the idea that the NHS is no longer the third rail of British politics come the next election.
I agree with Tyson although is his polite request even physically possible
The NHS is a public service. Not a religion.
This is site about betting on politics. Exploring the idea that public perception of a service/group could change has huge implications for that.
There are a lot of genuinely educated, interested, interesting and mostly reasonable people on here from all political parties - more and more seem to question the NHS on one level or another.
It is a possibility. Perhaps one you might not like, but there is no need to be rude or aggressive.
You have no idea just how repulsive I find your mentality.
I'm going to a dear relatives funeral next week. The NHS missed the fact she had a fractured spine.
Well I am sorry about that but if you have not noticed I care passionately about the state of the NHS and the quality of care it provides you have not been looking very hard.
[snip]
The PAC is only saying what I have been posting for 3 years on here.
Kasich's odds to back him on Betfair are currently 9.4, i.e. 8/1 in old money net of commission, yet 2 or 3 days ago he was twice these odds. Does the wider betting fraternity know something we PBers don't?
Throughout this campaign, for three months, Not Trump has been too long. It's shifted through Cruz, Rubio and now Kasich - but it's equally wrong. Even Speedy thinks Trump will finish up just 50 delegates short - they won't rob Trump of that at the Convention.
Where do you see the value on Betfair for the POTUS/GOP?
Kasich's odds to back him on Betfair are currently 9.4, i.e. 8/1 in old money net of commission, yet 2 or 3 days ago he was twice these odds. Does the wider betting fraternity know something we PBers don't?
Trusts' finances look set to deteriorate further—halfway through 2015–16 three quarters of trusts had a deficit, and their total overspend could rise to around £2.5 billion.
The Department, NHS England and NHS Improvement have not taken action soon enough to keep trusts in financial balance. The target for trusts to make 4% efficiency savings across the board is unrealistic and better data is needed for more informed savings and efficiency targets.
Current system "not fit-for-purpose" Failings in the system for paying providers need to be addressed as a matter of urgency, with NHS Improvement and NHS England acknowledging that the current system is not fit-for-purpose as it does not incentivise the right behaviours needed for joined-up healthcare services.
So, in spite of a record budget the "Envy of the World" is still crap , and "one of the worst healthcare systems in the advanced world" ((c) OECD)?
Never trust the Tories with the NHS
Never the fault of the large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation that it is a large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation, is it?
Based on my last hospital experience, our monthly BUPA payment is money well spent.
You were lucky. Remember Stafford?
I watched a close relative come near to death thanks to appallingly poor care at hands of the NHS. Has it not been for private intervention they would not be alive today.
A relative of mine died a couple of weeks back. It was probably inevitable, but on the care was highly variable. His GP admitted him too late, deferring admission for too long, but the admitting ward took excellent care of him and pulled him back from the brink. Unfortunately he was then transferred to a rehab ward who squandered all that good work. All on the NHS, and all in the same hospital. Both bad and good in one place, it is very hard to generalise from.
Kasich's odds to back him on Betfair are currently 9.4, i.e. 8/1 in old money net of commission, yet 2 or 3 days ago he was twice these odds. Does the wider betting fraternity know something we PBers don't?
Throughout this campaign, for three months, Not Trump has been too long. It's shifted through Cruz, Rubio and now Kasich - but it's equally wrong. Even Speedy thinks Trump will finish up just 50 delegates short - they won't rob Trump of that at the Convention.
Where do you see the value on Betfair for the POTUS/GOP?
It's not sexy, but lay Kasich for the nomination. Cruz is a tad short (I respectfully disagree with Pulps on this), I think, but not much. Trump should, accordingly, be 1.25 or so.
Fuck off you vile piece of shit. I've just told you my mum died last week and you want to make some political point from it. You fucking prick.
You are the one who tried to make a political point of it by making the comparison between he NHS and BUPA. The response was no more political than your posting so you have no right at all to play on your own loss as a means to attack another poster.
In the last weeks, I've just gone through seeing my mum dying on a NHS ward in truly horrific circumstances. And you know something, I could not have wished for better, more caring treatment from such caring staff. And this was in Blackpool Victoria. To be honest I doubt BUPA, or any other private hospital in the world could have given my mum better care and dignity in these last days.
Trusts' finances look set to deteriorate further—halfway through 2015–16 three quarters of trusts had a deficit, and their total overspend could rise to around £2.5 billion.
The Department, NHS England and NHS Improvement have not taken action soon enough to keep trusts in financial balance. The target for trusts to make 4% efficiency savings across the board is unrealistic and better data is needed for more informed savings and efficiency targets.
Spending on agency staff has contributed to trusts' financial distress, and action to tackle this problem is welcome, albeit late. The NHS will not solve the problem of reliance on agency staff until it solves its wider workforce planning issues.
We recognise the immense challenge of achieving financial and service sustainability when demand is rising and budgets are tight, and acknowledge the ongoing efforts of NHS England and NHS Improvement to find solutions. But there is much to do to produce the convincing plan necessary for the NHS to get itself back into financial balance.
So, in spite of a record budget the "Envy of the World" is still crap , and "one of the worst healthcare systems in the advanced world" ((c) OECD)?
Never trust the Tories with the NHS
Never the fault of the large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation that it is a large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation, is it?
Based on my last hospital experience, our monthly BUPA payment is money well spent.
You were lucky. Remember Stafford?
I watched a close relative come near to death thanks to appallingly poor care at hands of the NHS. Has it not been for private intervention they would not be alive today.
Trusts' finances look set to deteriorate further—halfway through 2015–16 three quarters of trusts had a deficit, and their total overspend could rise to around £2.5 billion.
The Department, NHS England and NHS Improvement have not taken action soon enough to keep trusts in financial balance. The target for trusts to make 4% efficiency savings across the board is unrealistic and better data is needed for more informed savings and efficiency targets.
Current system "not fit-for-purpose" Failings in the system for paying providers need to be addressed as a matter of urgency, with NHS Improvement and NHS England acknowledging that the current system is not fit-for-purpose as it does not incentivise the right behaviours needed for joined-up healthcare services.
So, in spite of a record budget the "Envy of the World" is still crap , and "one of the worst healthcare systems in the advanced world" ((c) OECD)?
Never trust the Tories with the NHS
Never the fault of the large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation that it is a large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation, is it?
Based on my last hospital experience, our monthly BUPA payment is money well spent.
You were lucky. Remember Stafford?
I watched a close relative come near to death thanks to appallingly poor care at hands of the NHS. Has it not been for private intervention they would not be alive today.
A relative of mine died a couple of weeks back. It was probably inevitable, but on the care was highly variable. His GP admitted him too late, deferring admission for too long, but the admitting ward took excellent care of him and pulled him back from the brink. Unfortunately he was then transferred to a rehab ward who squandered all that good work. All on the NHS, and all in the same hospital. Both bad and good in one place, it is very hard to generalise from.
You have no idea just how repulsive I find your mentality.
I'm going to a dear relatives funeral next week. The NHS missed the fact she had a fractured spine.
Well I am sorry about that but if you have not noticed I care passionately about the state of the NHS and the quality of care it provides you have not been looking very hard.
Just maybe the financial state the Acute hospitals of the NHS may have contributed to what sounds like a tragically poor standard of care
IMO Lansley is primarily responsible for the sudden deterioration of Acute finances due to his Conflict of interest reforms. The PAC is only saying what I have been posting for 3 years on here.
Sad but true
I bet there are few people who in their life history have not had relatives or friends who have not over the last 68 years felt let down by the NHS [ clearly in Stafford, there were 1000s] - others who've had good care and prompt treatment .... And this through all governments and through how many minor and major re-organisations.
Just maybe the financial state the Acute hospitals of the NHS may have contributed to what sounds like a tragically poor standard of care
Like:
a) My wife leaving A and E with a foot ache that was a broken ankle that they had missed in 2005; b) My mother in law having routine surgery that ended in a six month coma in 2006; c) Like me receiving calls about my mum's 'risk assessments' on the day I buried her in 2010;
Your religion blinds you.
Wow you have been unlucky,
No wonder you dont trust the NHS.
Perhaps you should be as worried as me that the" system for funding Acute hospitals is not fit for purpose" and "deteriorating fast"
It's not sexy, but lay Kasich for the nomination. Cruz is a tad short (I respectfully disagree with Pulps on this), I think, but not much. Trump should, accordingly, be 1.25 or so.
Yep, Kasich has nothing like a 10% chance of getting the nomination. What are those backing him at those odds (or even shorter) smokin'?
A relative of mine died a couple of weeks back. It was probably inevitable, but on the care was highly variable. His GP admitted him too late, deferring admission for too long, but the admitting ward took excellent care of him and pulled him back from the brink. Unfortunately he was then transferred to a rehab ward who squandered all that good work. All on the NHS, and all in the same hospital. Both bad and good in one place, it is very hard to generalise from.
Indeed.
Which is why people bringing up individual experiences - good or bad - doesn't move the debate on.
Just maybe the financial state the Acute hospitals of the NHS may have contributed to what sounds like a tragically poor standard of care
Like:
a) My wife leaving A and E with a foot ache that was a broken ankle that they had missed in 2005; b) My mother in law having routine surgery that ended in a six month coma in 2006; c) Like me receiving calls about my mum's 'risk assessments' on the day I buried her in 2010;
Your religion blinds you.
I broke my thumb in 8 places and NHS said it was inoperable. I happened to have private health insurance. I went to the private hospital next day and blow me down, it was the same doctor who saw me at NHS teh day before. 'He said, dear boy. that looks nasty. I could operate tonight once you've had 12 hours without food.' A) NHS, not impressed; Surgeon, bastard!
No. She never swore. And she was the kindest, most gentle, compassionate, generous, selfless, open hearted, caring person you could ever encounter. She could't believe that we could refuse migrants access to Europe. And she liked Cameron, Osborne and the Queen, and wouldn't hear a bad word spoken against them.
So, just interested, GeoffM- you're a human being right? And you are trying to be clever with me after I have just said I just witnessed my mum dying in horrific circumstances.
Kasich's odds to back him on Betfair are currently 9.4, i.e. 8/1 in old money net of commission, yet 2 or 3 days ago he was twice these odds. Does the wider betting fraternity know something we PBers don't?
Throughout this campaign, for three months, Not Trump has been too long. It's shifted through Cruz, Rubio and now Kasich - but it's equally wrong. Even Speedy thinks Trump will finish up just 50 delegates short - they won't rob Trump of that at the Convention.
Where do you see the value on Betfair for the POTUS/GOP?
It's not sexy, but lay Kasich for the nomination. Cruz is a tad short (I respectfully disagree with Pulps on this), I think, but not much. Trump should, accordingly, be 1.25 or so.
I agree on Kasich.
That's not to say his odds won't shorten further, though.
In the last weeks, I've just gone through seeing my mum dying on a NHS ward in truly horrific circumstances. And you know something, I could not have wished for better, more caring treatment from such caring staff. And this was in Blackpool Victoria. To be honest I doubt BUPA, or any other private hospital in the world could have given my mum better care and dignity in these last days.
Trusts' finances look set to deteriorate further—halfway through 2015–16 three quarters of trusts had a deficit, and their total overspend could rise to around £2.5 billion.
The Department, NHS England and NHS Improvement have not taken action soon enough to keep trusts in financial balance. The target for trusts to make 4% efficiency savings across the board is unrealistic and better data is needed for more informed savings and efficiency targets.
Spending on agency staff has contributed to trusts' financial distress, and action to tackle this problem is welcome, albeit late. The NHS will not solve the problem of reliance on agency staff until it solves its wider workforce planning issues.
We recognise the immense challenge of achieving financial and service sustainability when demand is rising and budgets are tight, and acknowledge the ongoing efforts of NHS England and NHS Improvement to find solutions. But there is much to do to produce the convincing plan necessary for the NHS to get itself back into financial balance.
So, in spite of a record budget the "Envy of the World" is still crap , and "one of the worst healthcare systems in the advanced world" ((c) OECD)?
Never trust the Tories with the NHS
Never the fault of the large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation that it is a large, inefficient bureaucratic organisation, is it?
Based on my last hospital experience, our monthly BUPA payment is money well spent.
You were lucky. Remember Stafford?
I watched a close relative come near to death thanks to appallingly poor care at hands of the NHS. Has it not been for private intervention they would not be alive today.
It's not sexy, but lay Kasich for the nomination. Cruz is a tad short (I respectfully disagree with Pulps on this), I think, but not much. Trump should, accordingly, be 1.25 or so.
Yep, Kasich has nothing like a 10% chance of getting the nomination. What are those backing him at those odds (or even shorter) smokin'?
I'm backing Cruz and backing Trump as the mood takes me
It's not sexy, but lay Kasich for the nomination. Cruz is a tad short (I respectfully disagree with Pulps on this), I think, but not much. Trump should, accordingly, be 1.25 or so.
Yep, Kasich has nothing like a 10% chance of getting the nomination. What are those backing him at those odds (or even shorter) smokin'?
I'm backing Cruz and backing Trump as the mood takes me
Kasich may yet come in when he wins Ohio !!
Is it mathematically even possible for Kasich to get more delegates than Trump after tonight?
It's not sexy, but lay Kasich for the nomination. Cruz is a tad short (I respectfully disagree with Pulps on this), I think, but not much. Trump should, accordingly, be 1.25 or so.
Yep, Kasich has nothing like a 10% chance of getting the nomination. What are those backing him at those odds (or even shorter) smokin'?
I'm backing Cruz and backing Trump as the mood takes me
Kasich may yet come in when he wins Ohio !!
Kasich will surely come in. I have to disagree with TheWhiteRabbit: laying Kasich is sexy as hell.
Comments
As I said it's too late to save the GOP.
You means every Tory MP that voted
And I agree it looks like a double digit win for him in Ohio.
Also there is talk of Cruz winning Missouri.
Bad night for Trump, for Cleveland too as it will burn down by the convention riots.
Winner: Democrats.
I have substantial funds invested in currencies, equities and so forth, and I have to put up with politicians playing fast and loose with my investments for their own political ends. Cameron's EU vote, something he did to save his bacon (no other good reason), has already cost me many thousands. Enough is enough.
I'm really not that interested in money to enjoy winning it. And I've already accumulated enough wealth for my own lifetime......
The Tory who made the highest claim in the MP energy expenses scandal has admitted taxpayers’ money was spent on a business at his country estate.
Millionaire Nadhim Zahawi claimed for electricity to run his horse riding school stables and a yard manager’s mobile home.
Over 65+
Trump 47
Rubio 26
Cruz 14
Kasich 9
Pretty useless though for Trump, since Kasich won Ohio and Cruz may have won Missouri.
Also late deciders 29% in N.C.
Based on my last hospital experience, our monthly BUPA payment is money well spent.
Seems to be a lot of hypocricy on one side of the house over this issue
Florida 99 (-)
Ohio 0 (-66)
Northern Marianas 9 (+9)
Missouri 10 (-32)
Leaves him 69 off the pace.
Leaves
North Carolina, target 29 - could overperform that
Illinois, target 39 - will be about that
Not fatal as long as Rubio either drops out or becomes irrelevant.
Kasich 41
Trump 38
Cruz 16
Rubio 2
Try running for Parliament on that ticket see how you get on
I'm going to a dear relative's funeral next week. The NHS missed the fact she had a fractured spine.
Being at least 70 delegates off pace that will grow to around 100 by the time N.Y. votes makes it a close certainty that Trump won't get a majority of delegates.
Politics is still a theatrical game as far as I see it - most 'revolutionary' upstart new parties and individuals are not as revolutionary as they claim, so I'm not even convinced things are as different as some people think, even with the rise of new parties and outsider candidates.
Hard to disagree re health insurance. The NHS nearly killed a family member a couple of months ago; private intervention saved them.
I think around here I'd do pretty well....
Trump 47
Kasich 35
Cruz 15
Rubio 2
So Rubio gets 2% and Cruz around 14-15% in Ohio.
The late deciders and Independents have killed Trump though, it looks like 33-43 for Kasich.
I'm a PMI broker and I can tell you these companies are excellent when you need them, with oncology nurses, long term support etc
If of course he does badly in Missouri and Illinois.
So, to be polite, go fuck yourself.
That would be something worth seeing. Labour on 125 seats?
Just maybe the financial state the Acute hospitals of the NHS may have contributed to what sounds like a tragically poor standard of care
IMO Lansley is primarily responsible for the sudden deterioration of Acute finances due to his Conflict of interest reforms. The PAC is only saying what I have been posting for 3 years on here.
Sad but true
Also Kasich has a 3 point lead over independents.
So it looks pretty much over in Ohio.
Fifty delegates is nothing.
I watched a close relative come near to death thanks to appallingly poor care at hands of the NHS. Has it not been for private intervention they would not be alive today.
His margin of victory in N.Y. and California will have to increase which each state he falls under target.
* Spotters Badge available for the reference
However we need more of a market for a contested convention.
I would recommend Exeter Friendly, or for those on a budget, Benenden. There are a number of good alternatives to BUPA.
my sincere condolences
Part of what cost Agency spend of $4Bn?
I bet he would have liked to have that in Ohio the rest of the states.
a) My wife leaving A and E with a foot ache that was a broken ankle that they had missed in 2005;
b) My mother in law having routine surgery that ended in a six month coma in 2006;
c) Like me receiving calls about my mum's 'risk assessments' on the day I buried her in 2010;
Your religion blinds you.
This is site about betting on politics. Exploring the idea that public perception of a service/group could change has huge implications for that.
There are a lot of genuinely educated, interested, interesting and mostly reasonable people on here from all political parties - more and more seem to question the NHS on one level or another.
It is a possibility. Perhaps one you might not like, but there is no need to be rude or aggressive.
Values 36
Change 31
Tells it like it is 19
Can win 11
So Trump should be around 33-36% in Ohio.
If Cruz is at 15 and Rubio at 2, then Kasich should be at around 47-50% of the vote.
No wonder you dont trust the NHS.
Perhaps you should be as worried as me that the" system for funding Acute hospitals is not fit for purpose" and "deteriorating fast"
No exit polls, yet of course.
Which is why people bringing up individual experiences - good or bad - doesn't move the debate on.
So, just interested, GeoffM- you're a human being right? And you are trying to be clever with me after I have just said I just witnessed my mum dying in horrific circumstances.
I don't think I'd like to be you to be honest.
That's not to say his odds won't shorten further, though.
Kasich may yet come in when he wins Ohio !!
https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/709872984014659584
https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/709873140491538432
The GOP side looks like it has entered in a proper 2 front war for Trump, not even 40 is enough to guarantee victory for him anymore.
Yes his odds may come in.
Lay him some more then.
Florida, Illinois to Trump
Missouri, North Carolina TCTC
Not even 40% guarantees him victory anymore.
I'm testing a rule tonight, if you're 5% vote share behind after 10% (?) counted, you go to lose.
It's based on a few examples where candidates (especially HRC) are supposed to "come back" once X or Y county declares. They haven't so far.