danny.

Not like the NHS is a model of efficiency though? It's the Legatum Health Index rating of European countries from 2023 (I didn't quickly find a more up to date source, I doubt enough has changed to massively affect the ratings since, though). Where is your data for Germany from? The latest I can find is 2023 which shows Germany spends at 11.8% GDP vs UK at 11.1% GDP (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthcaresystem/bulletins/ukhealthaccounts/2023and2024) so pretty much the same?

Because many people feel politically homeless and it's a case of voting for the least worst. I don't trust Nigel Farage. I don't trust Kier Starmer (for obvious and well documented reasons) I don't trust scandal era Post Office minister Ed Davey, I don't trust boob growing hypnotist Zack Polanski, I don't trust Tory anyone, including Kemi Badenoch. What a choice, eh. So is trusting anyone even a factor considering they are all awful?

Sorry, maybe I've mixed you up - hard to follow on here when multitasking! I think we can both agree on that list!

Again, in the US style-system that is true. In a Switzerland/Netherlands et al-style system that simply isn't true. For example in both those countries practises like excluding or dropping policy holders or hiking premiums (as you'd find with i.e. car/house policies in the UK) or excluding pre-existing conditions (as UK private healthcare does right now) is literally illegal, and it's heavily regulated and in many countries state-backed.

I asked for evidence as claims have been made. I agree with you re: the lack of evidence, but I'm not the person making specific claims. The burden of proof is on the claimant, otherwise it's just baseless speculation and theories.

Not empirical scientific evidence, just evidence - an interview, a document, a policy, anything. Just evidence VS personal speculation, because anyone can speculate on anything but it doesn't make it factual. I still find it bizarre you're arguing that moving to a difference implementation isn't worth the chance, as if the NHS is the best system out there and it's working well, because it's an absolute car crash right now and has been for some time. I've highlighted the countries with insurance-based healthcare in yellow, and many of them are doing way better than we are, i.e. the Netherlands ranks first for accessibility/efficiency and Switzerland ranks first for patient satisfaction. The Scandinavian and Nordic countries have NHS-style systems, and also perform better than the UK so we definitely don't have to move to insurance-based to improve, but as it stands the UK is worse than even Slovenia and Czechia who many would regard as second or third world countries, so I really don't buy that we can't afford to risk changing things, because we really can, and should.

I would genuinely love to see the evidence you have that shows Reform want to specifically implement a US style model of insurance backed healthcare. You say that Reform want to make inequality worse, but in reality that’s already started and happening under both Labour and the Tories as we’ve now reached a two tier health system where those that can afford private insurance have far better care than those who can’t.

I’m not sure that was typical based on my own experience and experiences of family members and friends but it’s great to hear and very glad your friend is doing well. it’s not the way “the rest of Europe does things”, healthcare systems are extremely mixed in ideology and implementation throughout Europe. I’d encourage you to do some research on this as it does seem like you’re not very well informed (I don’t mean that as an insult). Of course politicians lie, I don’t trust any of them. But to a point we have to go on statements and manifestos, otherwise why talk about anything? They might just u-turn on the lot (i.e. many important things Starmer promised) or implement things they have no mandate for (i.e. digital ID).

Why have you jumped from the NHS to a hypothetical system where people either pay full price for treatment or an unaffordable system? Switzerland, Netherlands, Germany, France etc. all have better outcomes and quality of care than we do. Feels like you have an agenda other than being objective. And re: selling off the NHS, that started decades ago with PFI and privatisation, and it was under Labour not reform https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1246070/ Do you have any evidence that Reform dislikes European examples of healthcare such as Switzerland et al? A quick Google tells me (https://fullfact.org/health/reform-nigel-farage-pay-for-nhs-labour/): - Reform UK: “Our policy is to always keep the NHS free at the point of use.” - Reform UK’s 2024 election manifesto: “Services will always be free at the point of use.” - When asked about the possibility of introducing health insurance, Mr Farage said: “If we could get a more efficient, better funding model, provided we give free care at the point of delivery, I’m prepared to consider anything.” Mr Farage was asked if he was open to moving to “a French-style insurance model for the NHS”, to which he replied: “I’m not saying we should absolutely mimic the French system, but let’s have a much deeper, broader thing.”

We could actually all get better experiences and probably access to GPs with a fee system. It would raise funds and also triage people that really don't need to see a GP. Personally I gave up on even trying to use the NHS for GPs years ago as waiting 4 weeks to see someone for something you need to see someone for the same or next day is already functionally pointless. Which is why I'm in favour of moving to an insurance based system, as friends in France and Germany have massively better experience and outcomes with healthcare issues, either immediate or ongoing. For example, without being too detailed, one friend in Bavaria developed mental health issues and needed help. In the UK you'd get maybe a 6-9 month wait to see a CBT therapist, which for many people will achieve nothing. In Germany she saw a psychotherapist (not a councillor) and have treatment three times a week for two years and was actually fixed. She didn't actually believe me when I explained the UK equivalent as it's so awful in comparison. tl;dr for many people if you want to see a GP or get any effective help you have to pay anyway.

Because that is just baseless speculation, probably fuelled by preexisting bias on other policies, aka you-made-that-up. The very best healthcare systems in the world/Europe (i.e. Switzerland, Netherlands, Germany) are all insurance based. It is the point he was making. Again using the same example, we currently pay small fees for prescriptions, of course we could pay similarly small fees only to see a GP via the NHS. I'm not sure how you can't see this when a current example already exists and is used by everyone.

It’s easier for some people to argue with a straw man than debate you. Why don’t you think of it like a prescription? They cost around £10, but the medicine often doesn’t cost £10, it’s a contribution towards the medicine. Some people who can’t afford that don’t pay it. Make more sense? You’re in for a real shock if you ever visit Bradford.

You’ve made that up.

I just think it's the way society has moved forwards, we've transitioned from a community based society to individualist. And many people simply don't care about anyone but themselves. You see it in everything from tragedies like this to how people drive.

Ah ok, I was just going off the link that someone posted above: https://en.protothema.gr/2025/09/11/wall-street-journal-pro-transgender-and-anti-fascist-slogans-on-the-bullets-of-kirks-killer/ Headline: "Wall Street Journal: pro-transgender and anti-fascist slogans on the bullets of Kirk’s killer"

As I've never heard of it, no.

Finding slogans on bullets is up there with finding passports amongst the molten steel of the twin towers

Also, after she was stabbed he just walked off, and then everyone else in the carriage just walked off, not a single person even stopped to check on her, let alone try and help her. Just left her there alone to bleed to death.

I think most people are blissfully unaware of how AI is going to completely ruin society. Just the mass unemployment alone will be devastating. =

We can't be too far off full videos, speeches, appearances etc. just being AI generations. And we will have absolutely no idea what's real or not anymore. We pretty much have this tech already just from e.g. Snapchat filters -

Not sure whether you've seen something or not in Hackney applies to the whole of the UK? I saw two people walking around openly carrying a weapon in Leicester the other week on a 20 minute car journey. There are definitely people walking around with knives, machetes, hammers, bats etc. You have a point that social media amplifies things, agreed, but it's still an issue for some areas of society.

Well, you're a robot, checks out!

Probably a good thing though, the amount he drones on. He waffles so much nonsense he loses himself and probably forgets what he even meant to say half the time.

Yea, that is the same Branas study @CornwallFox linked. It looked at assaults in Philadelphia over a 3 year period.

I totally agree with you, but I don't think it's that black and white, especially between states. The USA massively varies in culture across each state. I can see why people argue for it is all I'm saying, and also in that environment see why people have a case for using guns for self defence. If someone could press a button and take away all guns instantly, then that would be a no-brainer.