Temporary health cover whilst visiting this country

When British people go abroad on holiday or business they have to take with them health care cover just in case they become ill whilst in another country.

 

I would like to see that everyone entering this country where on holiday, for business or visiting relatives must have health insurance cover. 

 

On arrival at Customs and Immigration anyone arriving without such cover should have to pay a deposit of £1000 which is then transferred to a swipe card which must be produced when attending a doctor, dentist or clinic in this country for the amount of their treatment or care.  After treatment, etc the amount spent should be deducted from the card.

 

On exiting this country any refund of the balance can be paid back to the visitor, relative or business person. 

Why is this idea important?

When British people go abroad on holiday or business they have to take with them health care cover just in case they become ill whilst in another country.

 

I would like to see that everyone entering this country where on holiday, for business or visiting relatives must have health insurance cover. 

 

On arrival at Customs and Immigration anyone arriving without such cover should have to pay a deposit of £1000 which is then transferred to a swipe card which must be produced when attending a doctor, dentist or clinic in this country for the amount of their treatment or care.  After treatment, etc the amount spent should be deducted from the card.

 

On exiting this country any refund of the balance can be paid back to the visitor, relative or business person. 

The purchase of politics

In review of current laws which impose dificulty or taxation on one sector of the community, to a higher degre than others, we invariably find those laws have a foundation in the lobby groups hired by the same governments to promote agenda, suitable only to their partnered big buisiness interests, while government intrusions were amplified beyond the minimal levels of imposition we normally expect from governments

The measure of qualification for a law should always be to ask; did power create knowlege to subnstantiate new rules? This endeavor is also known as the purchase of politics, which in most civilized democracies, even when innitiated through a third party, is an illegal use of the public purse.

We can see this in the promotions of many campaigns originating out of financially conflicted UN agencies such as the World Health Organization who contend that all things are connected to public health.

What politicians loosely refer to today as “science” was the identical process utilized to prove that Aryans were the superior gene pool. Are they now in that corner too?  It was not untill the devastating effects of those nanny state "protections" of the gene pool, that scientists at the behest of UNESCO in seasrch of an answer to Nazi eugenics promotions, realized; that if we all originated from the same gene pool, and therefore all variance is environmental. The same misdirection can be seen in the promotions of hatred, developed by the fears of second [and now third] hand tobacco smoke.
 
If you would contend, the "science" is irrefutable, I have a huge problem with your reasoning skills.  
 
A sign on the door offers all the protection we ever needed and offers the least intrusion by governments, in order to provide all the protection a phobuic or neurotic personality ever required while protecting the maximum measure of freedom and respect that we all value first and foremost. 
 
The public health groups who find a danger in the smoke you would normally expect to find in a bar, where everyone supposedly goes to protect their health. Judging by the evidence they offer, those fears would only find scant reason to develop any level of theoretic concern, if those so called experts, spent an inordinate amount of time sitting on a bar-stool. Perhaps in order to solve this problem those people at the heads of the government funded and conflicted big pharma lobby groups, should be directed to their local AA meetings and that level of risk would decrease dramatically.  
 
Epidemiology is exclusively opinion and postulation, it is everything science is not. The smoking ban divisions of community or what the Public health opportunists and spin doctors refer to as “denormalization”, is an abusive act, supported only in an exercise of power creating knowledge. Those who give any of it credibility deserve every bit of the inevitable hubris that will eventually flow from that kind of knowledge, during their prosecutions.

Why is this idea important?

In review of current laws which impose dificulty or taxation on one sector of the community, to a higher degre than others, we invariably find those laws have a foundation in the lobby groups hired by the same governments to promote agenda, suitable only to their partnered big buisiness interests, while government intrusions were amplified beyond the minimal levels of imposition we normally expect from governments

The measure of qualification for a law should always be to ask; did power create knowlege to subnstantiate new rules? This endeavor is also known as the purchase of politics, which in most civilized democracies, even when innitiated through a third party, is an illegal use of the public purse.

We can see this in the promotions of many campaigns originating out of financially conflicted UN agencies such as the World Health Organization who contend that all things are connected to public health.

What politicians loosely refer to today as “science” was the identical process utilized to prove that Aryans were the superior gene pool. Are they now in that corner too?  It was not untill the devastating effects of those nanny state "protections" of the gene pool, that scientists at the behest of UNESCO in seasrch of an answer to Nazi eugenics promotions, realized; that if we all originated from the same gene pool, and therefore all variance is environmental. The same misdirection can be seen in the promotions of hatred, developed by the fears of second [and now third] hand tobacco smoke.
 
If you would contend, the "science" is irrefutable, I have a huge problem with your reasoning skills.  
 
A sign on the door offers all the protection we ever needed and offers the least intrusion by governments, in order to provide all the protection a phobuic or neurotic personality ever required while protecting the maximum measure of freedom and respect that we all value first and foremost. 
 
The public health groups who find a danger in the smoke you would normally expect to find in a bar, where everyone supposedly goes to protect their health. Judging by the evidence they offer, those fears would only find scant reason to develop any level of theoretic concern, if those so called experts, spent an inordinate amount of time sitting on a bar-stool. Perhaps in order to solve this problem those people at the heads of the government funded and conflicted big pharma lobby groups, should be directed to their local AA meetings and that level of risk would decrease dramatically.  
 
Epidemiology is exclusively opinion and postulation, it is everything science is not. The smoking ban divisions of community or what the Public health opportunists and spin doctors refer to as “denormalization”, is an abusive act, supported only in an exercise of power creating knowledge. Those who give any of it credibility deserve every bit of the inevitable hubris that will eventually flow from that kind of knowledge, during their prosecutions.

Leave the EU – that should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation

Leaving the EU should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation which this site was set up to do. Most of the ideas proposed on this site would be impossible to repeal because the are binding on our government. Euro diktat has precedence over UK law in many cases.

Most of our legislation is now directed from Brussels. The government you elect here in the UK can rarely do anything about laws, regulations and bureacracy from the EU. Most of these things have been created after lobbying by special interest groups or big business. They have the deep pockets to employ specialist PR agents who – at best – wine and dine the EU bureacrats.

Even where the legislations sounds to be positive, it is usually at enormous cost.

Every year, thousands of new rules and regulations are published producing a monumental nuisance for almost every organisation in the country.

Some we know are EU-inspired, but other laws are less well known as EU in origin. In fact most of our legislation comes from over the water.  But the majority of EU laws and regulations are expensive to implement and monitor, and ineffective in not producing the intended effect; some are harmful, and of course some actually useful.

Why is this idea important?

Leaving the EU should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation which this site was set up to do. Most of the ideas proposed on this site would be impossible to repeal because the are binding on our government. Euro diktat has precedence over UK law in many cases.

Most of our legislation is now directed from Brussels. The government you elect here in the UK can rarely do anything about laws, regulations and bureacracy from the EU. Most of these things have been created after lobbying by special interest groups or big business. They have the deep pockets to employ specialist PR agents who – at best – wine and dine the EU bureacrats.

Even where the legislations sounds to be positive, it is usually at enormous cost.

Every year, thousands of new rules and regulations are published producing a monumental nuisance for almost every organisation in the country.

Some we know are EU-inspired, but other laws are less well known as EU in origin. In fact most of our legislation comes from over the water.  But the majority of EU laws and regulations are expensive to implement and monitor, and ineffective in not producing the intended effect; some are harmful, and of course some actually useful.