The only way to get the EU to take the UK seriously is to vote to leave

[SpringingIntoAction]

Cameron tells us repeatedly that he wants to remain in a reformed EU.

Many others across the political divides also acknowledge the need for the EU to reform itself.

Some say that's why we need to remain in the EU - to change it from within.

I think the EU's refusal to engage with Cameron's plea for his EU reforms and the failure of his 'special deal' to achieve anything like the changes he originally said he wanted, show the EU is unwilling/incapable of reform.

I think the only way to get the EU to start taking our demands for reform seriously is to vote to leave.

They need to start imagining what the EU would be like without one of its largest funders - the UK. We do that by voting to leave.

@Breaking: Insurance based systems do not have to be profit making systems. Most in Europe are run on a non profit basis.
I think this is one ofnthe few issues on which Nigel Farage has a valid point.

Breaking,

What benefits do you think the UK&NI will see from "an ever closer political union"?

Popocat:

www.richardcorbett.org.uk/eu-ignores-referendum-results/

I posted the wrong link.

I'm going for a lie down.

Oops.

I think as usual there are some serious misunderstandings here of how social insurance systems work, and how much they cost.

Let's start with costs: spending on healthcare is typically about 11-12% of GDP in the richest european economies with social insurance systems that provide healthcare comparable to the NHS. In the UK the figure is about 9%.

Only a small part of this difference is "better" healthcare: I'm happy to rely on the French system rather than the NHS, but I'd be the first to say that French health isn't 25-30% "better". Much of the difference in cost goes towards funding (a) a larger bureaucracy that is required in any insurance-based healthcare system, in order to track payment and reimbursements and (b) a tendency towards excessive and often unnecessary treatments and investigations, often for minor self-limiting illness - a problem that is common to all healthcare systems that prioritise patient choice ahead of an agreed standard of care.

What benefits do you think the UK&NI will see from "an ever closer political union"?

Thats not on the table and should be filed under "what ifs" like the "billion turkish people coming to the UK next year when turkey get fasttracked"

We are voting on the status quo, this is not a Euro (currency) vote.

@Mr Snow: At last, something we agree on! Highlights from your link below

"They claim that the EU ignored national democratic decisions when it came to the French and Dutch referendums on the proposed EU constitution, Ireland’s initial “No” to the Lisbon treaty, and the Greek referendum of 2015. They claim that all these decisions were “overruled by the EU”!

In all three of these cases, if you look closer, the eurosceptic narrative turns out to be yet another of their attempts to conjure up a conspiracy on subjects where they hope many people are unfamiliar with the detail."

Own goal or what?

Only a small part of this difference is "better" healthcare: I'm happy to rely on the French system rather than the NHS, but I'd be the first to say that French health isn't 25-30% "better". Much of the difference in cost goes towards funding (a) a larger bureaucracy that is required in any insurance-based healthcare system, in order to track payment and reimbursements and (b) a tendency towards excessive and often unnecessary treatments and investigations, often for minor self-limiting illness - a problem that is common to all healthcare systems that prioritise patient choice ahead of an agreed standard of care.

I have used private health systems when getting ill overseas and its was like £250-300 for DW who had a bad chest infection, which in the Uk she would have probably been told keep an eye on it, and maybe antibiotics, over there she had bloods, urine and I think a chest Xray as well.

the cost becomes what the insurance company will pay out not neccesarily related to the actual cost of the treatment/investigation.

i have wondered about this in relation to vets in that with more insurance this has caused inflated costs.

@Breaking: I think there are different models in different countries. In Germany for example there is public health insurance. Contributions are shared by employer and employee. Not dissimilar to National Insurance. You get a card showing you are insured and treatment is free at the point of delivery. No card. No treatment unless you are an emergency. It means there are few health tourists.

Popocatapetl1234

That sounds good, I do know people working in the NHS and I have mentioned this before they are poor at chasing obvious health tourists.

Full fact did a good thing on health tourism:

fullfact.org/health/health-tourists-how-much-do-they-cost-and-who-pays/

Social insurance systems in Europe aren't "private", although they usually have some private sector involvement. What I wrote above, about care being less efficient and more expensive, is true of both Germany and france. It would be true with knobs on twice over in the U.S., where the system is private and healthcare costs are close to double UK levels yet still leave millions uncovered.

I can't remember why we are talking about healthcare but Arron Banks of Leave.EU (is that Spring's lot or is she G.O.?) said today that he's in favour of privatising the NHS. Either way the idea that leaving will benefit the NHS is tosh. It's the one big organisation where an unbiased look at the costs and benefits of migration would come down firmly on the side of it being beneficial.

We are voting on the status quo, this is not a Euro (currency) vote

We are not voting on the status quo at all. The EU is changing and growing and our influence within it decreases as every new country joins.

Cameron claims he has a permanent opt-out from the Euro - he does nit All it would take is for some future PM to write to Brussels and say the UK will join the Eurozone - that's all that's required. No vote. That is scary.
And you can imagine that when the referendum is over and if we stay in there will be pressure for the UK to join the Euro because the EU will say - why do you want to keep the £, you have just voted to stay in the EU, you don't need the £ now.

Safer, stronger and better to get right out and put the danger of a rogue PM (like Corbyn?)_ signing us up fully to the EU experiment.

The NHS is more likely to be privatised if the UK remains in the EU due to the TITP. Actually its a near certainty the NHS will privatise if the TITP becomes a reality.

TITP is meant to link the US and EU trade. The UK will more than likely sign up to TITP either way anyway, in or out, so don't use it and the privatisation of NHS as a BREXIT only scenario because that is nonsence.

Are you seriously saying the EU won't sign up to TITP?

Its an EU-US trade deal. Thank you. Are the French really going to water it down to protect the UK NHS? Will the American want to water it down the protect the NHS? I don't think so. The French will fall in with the Germans and the Americans will be the ones to dicatate the TTIP terms the most because the EU needs the deal more so than US. I don't vote Tory either but please don't make it out to be a BREXIT issue only because it is not. Being in the EU will not save the NHS.

They haven't it's just an easy scare tactic to hang their hat on. Like everything else they post it doesn't bear up to scrutiny.

Your whole argument is suggesting that TTIP affecting the NHS is a BREXIT only scenario. That is baloney.