NHS In The Corridor

[Liar]

Their meaning of "sport" isn't about team activities but overt display...

Og

I've noticed. The page full of whore ads were a bit of a giveaway.

 

[oggbashan]

I've noticed. The page full of whore ads were a bit of a giveaway.

Do you link that I have lowered the tone of this thread sufficiently by introducing the Daily Sport?

Og

 

[Liar]

We're all very proud of you.

 

[amicus]

Wanting everyone to have access to health care is not a woman's issue, ami.

And, honey - you don't have the brains or balls to equate father figure for most of the women around here.

You'd better try much younger. Prepubescent. But stay away from my daughter.[/QUOTE]

~~~

You might do a little research SSS, even if it galls you to learn facts. There are thousands of sources to provide documentation that women, by nature, are more prone, (heh), to need medical services than men. Even just a modicum of common sense, in that women bear children, (usually a hospital event and many pre and post natal visits).

Another 'fact' to consider, is that the elderly consume nearly half of all medical expenses because age brings illness of all sorts.

It is also common sense knowledge that men seldom avail themselves of medical service unless they are injured or very ill and cannot work; women call them, 'stupid', for not getting regular check-ups and such. Men smoke and drink more than there 'more sensitive' counterparts.

You might also consider the number of 'fatherless' homes, 'single mom' categories that turn to State Assistance for all their medical needs.

In other words, and succinctly, socialized medicine, national health care, call it what you want is indeed and blatantly a women's issue.

Now...if you can refrain from personal attacks...( I doubt it) address them facts, ma'am.



Amicus

 

[freshface]

Thanks for the clarification.

Must make it bitchin' confusing for consumers though. If I walk through a store with $50 in my pocket, I'll have to add percentages to the price tags to know how much stuff I can buy? I want to know upfront how much I'm supposed to pay. I don't really care what part is tax, what part is the retailer's puchase price and what part is profit margin.

It's not a "hidden" tax because of it. Only if the sales tax or VAT is not declared. Which it always is, at least o'er here.

Especially since I, as a business owner, get to zip that from my own taxes.

You should try going out for dinner some time. Tax and tip are both left out of the dinner price in the US. Settling a check can be an exercise in higher math.

For the record, it's the same system in Germany with the VAT. Every receipt has the price without VAT, the VAT, and the total amount. Nothing hidden about it.

 

[freshface]

Thanks for posting this, Freshface. As I've mentioned before, the Babe is a Federal Administrative Law Judge working for the SSA and dealing with disability claims. The idea that it's just ~those~ people who are either illegals (who don't deserve our attention) or people too cheap to pay for their own (Republicans?) is not borne out by the data.

I think it's a common defense mechanism. "Those" people did something to deserve their current situation, while "I" was smart enough to avoid it. It's the sort of thing that often gets directed at rape victims, too. Mix in a bit of "I have mine and screw the rest of you" and you have current Republican policy on the topic.

 

[R. Richard]

I just read in IBD that the French also have a national healthcare system. A Frenchie who makes 3,000 Euros per month has 350 Euros automatically deducted to pay for the 'free' healthcare. The employer also pays 1,200 Euros per month for the 'free' healthcare. The result is that the Frenchie makes 1,200 Euros per month less than would be the case without the 'free' health care and then 350 Euros are taken out of the remaining money.

Is it the same in the UK? Does someone who makes 3,000 quid per month effectively pay 1,550 quiss for the 'free' healthcare?

As to the VAT being shown on the receipt, please explain how the several VAT charges [which might differ from 'identical' merchandise item to item, depending on the subcontractors used] are tracked to show the consumer the total VAT charges. TIA.

Og: The newspaper you suggested may not have far ranging coverage, but they are FOCUSED on what they do cover [uncover?]!

 

[Saucyminx]

You might do a little research SSS, even if it galls you to learn facts. There are thousands of sources to provide documentation that women, by nature, are more prone, (heh), to need medical services than men. Even just a modicum of common sense, in that women bear children, (usually a hospital event and many pre and post natal visits).

Not necessarily so, with birth control and the fact that not all women elect to have children, I would have to wonder if the sources you are speaking of take that into account.

It is also common sense knowledge that men seldom avail themselves of medical service unless they are injured or very ill and cannot work; women call them, 'stupid', for not getting regular check-ups and such. Men smoke and drink more than there 'more sensitive' counterparts.

On the other hand, due to lack of preventative care, when these men do find themselves in need of a medical intervention, the problem has become so severe, it results in higher costs due to longer hospital stays, surgical procedures, and long term damage. Also if what you ascertain is true, that men smoke and drink more than a sensitive female such as myself, that means they also run higher risks of lung cancer, heart attack, and stroke, not to mention std's from all the beer goggling. Cost-wise, those are some biggies.

You might also consider the number of 'fatherless' homes, 'single mom' categories that turn to State Assistance for all their medical needs.

In other words, and succinctly, socialized medicine, national health care, call it what you want is indeed and blatantly a women's issue.

I have to say ami, in Pennsylvania, gender is fairly evenly split when it comes to Medical Assistance recipients. I will concede that the majority of those recipients are from 2 groups: children and the elderly. Surprisingly, not as many of the children are from single parent homes, I very often see whole families.

Now...if you can refrain from personal attacks...( I doubt it) address them facts, ma'am.



Amicus

Please note, no personal attacks.

 

[john-the-author]

I love it how I have to scroll down two screens of T&A to get to the sport headlines (all four of them) for a mag called "Sport".

Some sport is more contact than others, Liar.

 

[john-the-author]

As to the Daily Mail, it's not a newpaper that I normally read. I normally read the Sun. However, if you can recommend me a newspaper that has hotter looking Page 3 babes, with less clothes on, than the Sun, I would be most grateful. I don't claim to know great deal about journalism, but I know what I like.

Well spoke, RR!

 

[oggbashan]

...

Is it the same in the UK? Does someone who makes 3,000 quid per month effectively pay 1,550 quiss for the 'free' healthcare?

...

Og: The newspaper you suggested may not have far ranging coverage, but they are FOCUSED on what they do cover [uncover?]!

This is an explanation of National Insurance Contributions.

Note that National Insurance covers Unemployment Benefit and Pensions as well as the National Health Service BUT it is really a tax.

Og

 

[john-the-author]

I think it's a common defense mechanism. "Those" people did something to deserve their current situation, while "I" was smart enough to avoid it. It's the sort of thing that often gets directed at rape victims, too. Mix in a bit of "I have mine and screw the rest of you" and you have current Republican policy on the topic.

Yes. I'm seeing far too much blaming the victim in the health care debate. "If you were a better person/not a lazy slugabed/legal immigrant/had applied yourself better/made more informed choices, you could afford the insurance rates." I'm sure there are people who fail all of those tests, but, like I say, the Babe sees people every day who through no fault of their own ended up crippled/damaged/disabled and have no wherewithal to make the rather considerable amount of money that health insurance suggests.

What happens to all the displaced auto workers, for example? Is it their "fault" that the auto industry has gone dick-down? I've just gotten laid off from my day job recently (termination date coming in a little while; they need me). What would I do to afford the COBRA if I have no job? The Babe's insurance isn't nearly as good as mine--imagine that, Federal judge and I, who make half of what she does, get better insurance--so I'll have ~some~ coverage, but what if I were the sole breadwinner like many of my compatriots at the company, many of whom have been there for a decade?

Blaming the victim is just another method of saying "Not my problem because it'll NEVER happen to me." Ohhhhh, yeahhhhhh, sure thing.

 

[amicus]

Saucyminx
So damn happy!


~~~

Noted and appreciated the lack of personal attack...

I even think you acknowledged the major points, that women naturally require more medical care than men, almost by definition, and that single mothers are more likely to need assistance beyond private insurance...although I am fudging a little there.

One might also consider actuarial figures that note women live several years longer than men, on the average, and again, by extrapolation, require more care.

I realize it is unusual to run across someone who argues, discusses, and postulates the ideals of individual liberty and that it may be a new occurence for you.

For nearly half a century now, people have been educated to look to government to solve societal problems, so when they, or you, discover there are those who are opposed to this trend, one can imagine the disbelief; many have simply never heard the arguments raised.

My advocacy of free market solutions to societal problems is one of principle and one of respect for the individual and his rights over the power of government. I turn to support from those documents, codified into law by the Constitution, which basically limit the function of government to protecting the life, liberty and property of the citizenry.

The power to tax is the power to destroy and early Americans were well aware of that and found the initial offering of Income Tax to be against the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

It has taken a hundred years of increasingly progressive legislation and Supreme Court battles to uphold Constitutional values, that the concept of a limited government has been slowly legislated away.

The government has no Constitutional authority to provide education, retirement or health care to the citizenry.

So it is not just socialized medicine that I rail against as un constitutional, but all the intrusions into private rights that lessen the value of the individual and sacrifice those rights to the common good.

Most of the avid supporters of social programs, some very well educated, have never been exposed to the vast resource of free market and individual liberty literature as they should have been as they acquired an education.

As I said, it does not surprise me that true, "Classical Liberal" concepts, those of individual freedom, are an unknown quantity of this forum and elsewhere.

regards...

Amicus

 

[Saucyminx]

You might be surprised that sometimes, , I agree with you. And yeah, you were fudging my agreement in the last post just a bit.

I have learned a lot that about national health care from the posters on this thread. I wholeheartedly agree that the current system in the US really doesn't work. I do hesitate (and always will) to have the government step in to try to fix things. I've seen medical insurance from both sides of the fence. Right after I got married, I worked for one of the Blues because we needed the money. As far as I know, there were no black ops departments to deny claims. Most of that was accomplished through good old fashioned incompetence. Management had to have a degree, my manager's degree was in Forestry. We tried to lure him into the woods several times, unfortunately he kept finding his way back.

Now I work for the state, (I'm a contractor so I actually have to work). Being in the thick of state run health care, I'm very concerned. It is a convoluted mess, with no lack of that good old fashioned incompetence.

I started to read this thread because of the title. One of the major hospitals in my territory just closed down it's maternity ward. I'm scrambling to find places for my ob/gyns in that area to deliver babies, not to mention soothing pregnant ladies who are now going to have to drive either 40 miles one direction, or 36 miles the other direction to deliver. Fun times.

 

[amicus]

Hello again, SaucyMinx....wanted to refresh myself on why ob/gyn's are scarce in your area and ran across this:

http://hutchison.senate.gov/speech121207.html

As I travel in my State, I hear the complaints, and have for the last number of years, about lack of health care in our rural areas. It is one of our largest issues in this country today. I want to talk a little bit about our situation in Texas because the amendment before us is modeled somewhat on the law that did provide medical malpractice reform in Texas.

Before 2003, according to the Texas Department of Health, 158 counties had no obstetricians, 24 counties had no primary care physicians at all, and 138 counties had no pediatricians. Texas ranked 48 of the 50 States in physician manpower for our population. Why were we having such trouble? Because the cost of providing health care before 2003 was unsustainable, largely due to increased litigation activity which drove the medical malpractice insurance rate so high that doctors were being driven out of Texas. In fact, the insurance companies also left Texas because the claims were so high.

~~~

Ambulance chasing Lawyers...Tort Reform...which the new proposed 1500 page House Bill does not address, they won't bite the hand that feeds them, trial attornies associations to donate 95 percent to Democrats during elections.

It is not so much that I tire of this debate, although I have been actively engaged in public forums, radio and television, since Medicare became law in the 60's and the minutia has accumulated to include social awareness and the mistaken concept that medical care is a 'right'.

I am neither a politican nor a paid proponent of any issue, rather one who attempts to speak from reason, rationality and the history of this nation and the impact of our founding documents.

"Rights", have been a long and arduous debate and even the dictonary definitions have been changed over time to include a 'social' aspect to the concept.

It is an interesting pursuit of knowledge should you care to engage; rights are not given or granted, they are innate and include life, liberty and property and very little else in the strict definition and certainly not the right to force a doctor or nurse provide services regardless of their choice.

I noticed that poor Johntheauthor above, is campaigning for benefits to carriage makers since the horse trade business went kaput with the advent of the combustion engine. Such a deal.

I don't mean to treat this issue lightly or with disdain, but when a 'right' for one includes forcing someone else to provide the services for that right, then I begin to smell a dictator in the making.

I do agree with you the the entire field of medicine is in a shamble, but I suggest it has more to do with a changing society and a much advanced accumulation of medical knowledge than it does with government employees deciding personal issues of health care for individuals.

again...regards and thank you for a civil reply.

Amicus\

edited to add: The news is on in the background, one of the cable channels and I just heard, "stop smoking, drinking, eating and excessive sex..." WTF!

What else is there?

ahem (you are supposed to read the 'ahem' as an irascible clearing of the throat)

 

[Guest]

. . . . .

 

[amicus]

Hello again, Sweetss...I doubt that anything either of us posts will change the mind of the other. The reasons for that are interesting and perhaps reflective of an entire generation.

You champion Feminism and, how shall I word this, 'social justice', I guess, to be kind and non confrontational, at least for the time being.

You seem to invest the majesty of humankind, when you do acknowledge anything accomplished in all of human history, with a social movement, a group accomplishment, a 'theology' of similar or like belief's that sweep across societies from time to time.

I, on the other hand, do just the opposite; I point to the achievements of single men and women, in time and space, that advance the envelope of human knowledge.

You also tend to perceive things from a feminine perspective, which is terribly normal in my eyes, but condescending in yours, which always enrages you.

I have often speculated on just how those who advocate total equality between the sexes, actually portray the future in their minds. Perhaps, one fine day, you might enlighten me?

I perceive reality, nature, existence, as being basically a 'predator & prey' scenario. I had that somewhat confirmed by the latest prognostications concerning the formation of new galaxies and star nuseries out in the Universe, as the large consume the small and perform the act of creation on a cosmic scale.

I suggest that one must be cognizant of the workings of nature to understand ourselves, each other and our existence as sentient beings on a planet that, too, is evolving through violent, absolute actions all in accordance with natural physical laws.

You have had a lifetime, however long yours has been, to accumulate information to bolster your world view of all subjects under the sun; so too, have I. It should not surprise anyone that individual preferences, pov's and conclusions differ naturally, how could it be otherwise?

I also give heed to racial, ethnic and environmental differences, along with the sexual ones, that lend credence to the concept of diversity.

You, on the other hand, seem hell bent to insist that all things among all people, are equal at all times.

I find that a foolish theological approach and seldom even engage in discussion and if so, only to enlighten those who have never actually entertained an opposing point of view.

I see what you appear to represent, as those who take stock of what is and then attempt to manipulate it to suit their purposes. It is a philosophy with agrarian roots in which change is an enemy, a threat to the social order that is.

Others view 'change' as the only constant in life. Things never remain as they were.

Amicus

 

[Liar]

Amicus, let me see if I can lay this down for you with some brevity.

You, as you may have noticed, get on peoples' nerves. I think it just hit me why.

It's not really your philosophy and opinions. Or the attitude and style in which you present them. They can be tiring enough, but you have every right to them, and every right to express them. God bless, go forth. But that's not it.

So what is? It's that nasty little habit of telling other people what their philosophy, opinion, moral foundation and motivation is. As if you know that better than they do. When in fact, it's just convenient little constructs for you to pitch your own positions against.

Come on, dude. You don't need that. You're intelligent and articulate enough to let your arguments stand on their own feet, are you not?

 

[amicus]

Hello again, Liar..you just made a pronouncement, in rather absolute terms, describing me, did you not?

"So what is? It's that nasty little habit of telling other people what their philosophy, opinion, moral foundation and motivation is. As if you know that better than they do. When in fact, it's just convenient little constructs for you to pitch your own positions against."

~~~

There is a news item of recent, about a kidnapped girl child located 18 years later.

Do you have an opinion on that? Do you think it would be, could be, should be an universal opinion?

There is an opinion against the death penalty in capital crimes, usually held by the left and some deviant religious cults. What is your opinion?

What you, and some others, object to in my posts, is a statement of absolutes which most shy away from, especially on social issues.

It is absolute and I know it and express it; that to take the life of an unborn child for any reason other than to save the mother's life, is a crime and wrong and should be treated as premeditated murder by both the mother and the physician.

That is what you don't like about my posts; you are unwilling to even contemplate moral absolutes.

In this current debate concerning socialized medicine, most seem willing and ready to sacrifice the rights of others, doctors in particular, for the 'greater good' of free health care for all.

I postulate that it is an absolute moral axiom that you cannot force another to do your bidding and still claim to be human.

It is not difficult to understand my philosphy, Liar, and you know that. The problem is, that so many others have built a layered world view on sacrificing the individual to the group, that to acknowledge even one small part of the primacy of the individual would destroy your entire philosophical foundation.

That is why some are irritated by my posts; I remind them that they have the capacity to be human and somewhere along the way, lost it.

Amicus

 

[Liar]

Hello again, Liar..you just made a pronouncement, in rather absolute terms, describing me, did you not?

No. I described a reoccuring elelment of your posts. Which is, other than what you have expressively told us, the only thing I know about you. I try my best to limit what I say about people to what they do. Not what I believe they think and feel.

That is what you don't like about my posts; you are unwilling to even contemplate moral absolutes.

Kindly cite my unwilingness to contemplate moral absolutes. That is what you believe that I think and feel. Not an observable action.

 

[SimonBrooke]

Ami, every post of yours drips with condescension, especially when you reduce things as "unimportant issues of women". My quotes, but your constant emphasis. Everything you post is a personal attack, followed by chortles of glee at your imagined superiority.

And I'll respond to facts when you begin posting some.

Put him on your ignore list, Sarah. I did so some years ago, and I've found no reason to regret it. He has nothing of interest to say, and is a poisonous person to boot.

 

[Teloz]

Sorry if I've jumped on your bandwagon Liar, but I had to reply.

There is a news item of recent, about a kidnapped girl child located 18 years later.

Do you have an opinion on that? Do you think it would be, could be, should be an universal opinion?

Depriving someone of their freedom is wrong. If there is universal acceptance of your constitution, it must be accepted as wrong universally, isn't freedom one of the basic tenets of it?

There is an opinion against the death penalty in capital crimes, usually held by the left and some deviant religious cults. What is your opinion?

If killing people is wrong, how can it suddenly become right for the state to kill people? Not in my name! I might add that I am liberal and atheist.

What you, and some others, object to in my posts, is a statement of absolutes which most shy away from, especially on social issues.

It is absolute and I know it and express it; that to take the life of an unborn child for any reason other than to save the mother's life, is a crime and wrong and should be treated as premeditated murder by both the mother and the physician.

That is only an absolute under your moral standard, not everyone else's. According to my moral standard abortion is fine up to 18 weeks as the foetus has no possibility of becoming viable. It's wrong to perform abortions, but fine to kill adults is that it?

That is what you don't like about my posts; you are unwilling to even contemplate moral absolutes.

When are you going to realise that there are no moral absolutes? Morality is learned from the people around us and the society we live in. Some of us have the intellect to develop our own moral standards and live by them.

In this current debate concerning socialized medicine, most seem willing and ready to sacrifice the rights of others, doctors in particular, for the 'greater good' of free health care for all.

With rights comes responsibilities, though I'm not sure how the doctor's rights are being infringed they have the responsibility to treat the sick, whether they can pay or not. Even lawyers do pro bono work!

I postulate that it is an absolute moral axiom that you cannot force another to do your bidding and still claim to be human.

There are thousands of dead plantation owners and slavers who would disagree with you, many built churches on the backs of slaves! By their moral standards slavery was a good thing.

It is not difficult to understand my philosophy, Liar, and you know that. The problem is, that so many others have built a layered world view on sacrificing the individual to the group, that to acknowledge even one small part of the primacy of the individual would destroy your entire philosophical foundation.

It isn't difficult to understand your philosophy, it is totally egocentric! If people don't believe what you believe they are wrong. Everyone should adhere to your moral standards because they are, in your opinion, the only moral standards. Where is the individual sacrificed to the group? Where does contributing to the common good infringe on your individuality?

That is why some are irritated by my posts; I remind them that they have the capacity to be human and somewhere along the way, lost it.

The final sentence says it all, you are so bloody arrogant you believe that everyone who doesn't conform to your world view is sub-human. No wonder you irritate people.

 

[3113]

Come on, dude. You don't need that. You're intelligent and articulate enough to let your arguments stand on their own feet, are you not?

Sure about that?

Kindly cite my unwilingness to contemplate moral absolutes. That is what you believe that I think and feel. Not an observable action.

I rest my case (whistling...)

You're too much the gentleman, Liar.

 

[3113]

Sorry if I've jumped on your bandwagon Liar, but I had to reply.

To Ami? Hardly worth the effort. Your typing fingers will give out before he does. Just sayin'

 

[R. Richard]

I just read,in IBD, that Stephen Hawking, the famous physicist, caught pneumonia in 1985, had to have a tracheotomy and required 24/7 nursing care. The NHS offered him seven hours of nursing care per week. According to Hawking biographers Michael White and John Gribben, the only reason Hawking survived was that his then wife Jane, wrote letter after letter to the international scienfic community and got private funding to provide the needed nursing care. Jane was very bitter that, after a lifetime of paying into NHS, Hawking was essentially abandoned by NHS.

Well NHS supporters, true or false?