England to 'decentralize' National Health Plan!

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

True, although I think it is 1% that are billionaires or greater. Another 53% of wealth is concentrated in another 19% of the population and I assume those would be the six figure salaries and millionaires, but that is just an assumption. Our only choice is to work within the system we have which is the best created so far in the world and try to make it as equitable and worthwhile as we can for all fellow Americans.

Three million billionaires is a lot; FORBES Magazine lists 1125, total.

I disagree with your 'work within the system' premise. Every system ever created concentrated wealth and power in the hands of elites, and impoverished-enslaved the rest. Revolts simply change one oppressive regime for another. Note that leaders become less accessible as their regimes become more oppressive.

 

[amicus]

One could observe, with some certainty, that Amicus absolutely represents a minority viewpoint on State controlled, Universal, or Socialized Medicine; use the politically correct terminology that suits you.

Patrick1, kindly gives Oggbashan a Tea break, so that he/she may take up the cudgel to pound on Amicus just a little more. May I suggest you read or re-read the link provided that notes the changes in the NHS are the most drastic since 1948. Now that is 62 years ago and it took the Soviet Union, that graveyard of socialism, 75 years to rot away.

I know that does not satisfy your request for hard evidence concerning the ‘failure’ of the NHS, but that has been provided before by comparisons of several ‘elective’ procedures that prolong life that are available in the US and not the UK.

“Life expectancy is higher in the UK, and indeed in most European countries, than in the USA. Health care is free at the point of delivery. Health care is cheaper per head, partly because the supposedly 'bureaucratic' British system spends a lower proportion of health spending on non-clinicians -…”

You offer the above with no documentation and even if you did, the measuring tools are suspect as without Blacks and Hispanics and Illegal’s in the US, life expectancy becomes a plus factor in a free society.

***

Seduc1ove, presents two viewpoints; a failure to understand the concept of unalienable rights and the typical class warfare scenario of Marxists, the rich versus the poor.

Concerning ‘rights’, this concept actually has a definition, should you care to explore it rather than put forth your own subjective opinion. Rights can neither be given nor taken away by government, they exist independent of others, are innate and each human being at birth is possessed of precisely the same ‘rights’ as all others. Any government so instituted among men can either act to protect those rights or abridge them.

I tire of the continual whining about the ‘have’s’ and the ‘have not’s’. Let me present an illustration that illuminates just how silly your whining really is: I use ‘high school’ in the US, and whatever you call it else where; and I single out the prettiest girl and the hunkiest guy.

There always is one, though the competition be fierce, and though you may not like it, those ‘special people’, always exist in any gathering of any size.

In a free society, there will always be a Thomas Edison and a George Westinghouse; now if you don’t know, these men were giants in the free enterprise market of supplying electricity to all. And they fought each other for years in open competition to provide the ‘best’ method of electrical transmission, and yes, both became billionaires.

Now you could have been the upper crust in high school and you could have been an Edison or a Westinghouse, but…you didn’t and you are not, and now you whine because some are better positioned in life than you.

Poor baby.


Liar:

The problem with Socialism as well as Capitaism is that both depend on the uncorruprability of the people within the system. Neither has strong enough self correcting mechanisms.

The institutions of Socialism is not good enough to protect it against greed for wealth and power among the political elite that runs it.

Originally Posted by amicus
I reject, out of hand, Liar's apology for both free and slave States, that people simply are not morally 'good enough', to insure the success of either or any system.

Liar:

For the record. These are your extrapolations on some hyperbolic and wildly fallacious tangent. Not what I think. Nor what I said.

Liar does not appreciate being called out on his pronouncements. You decide, did he or did he not say that people are not 'good' enough to make socialism work?

Oggbashan:

As I have said many times before, the NHS is only one way of obtaining Health Care in the UK.

If one is forced to support the NHS by taxation, it comes as no surprise that alternative health systems are sought by those who can afford it; that is called, ‘Black Market’ in most oppressive societies.

Ogg:

Amicus' rants about doctors being forced to work in the NHS are as faulty as many of his arguments.

No rant, Ogg, and you know it. Britain Nationalized healthcare in 1948; the government took over private health providers. Many of the highly skilled Medical Practitioners said, “Hell, No”, and ‘brain drained’ to America before the British Government forbid them to leave.

You don’t have a leg to stand on, Ogg; when government is the only working opportunity to any professional, they have no choice of any other employment and are thus, ‘conscripted’ into service to the State and are given no choice as to compensation, time or method of service.

The Brit’s ousted Churchill and went with Labor after WW2, ‘Labor’ in England is a synonym for Socialist. It comes as no surprise to me that most Englishmen hate to be called socialists, but if it walks like a….?

Ogg:

The costs of the US health industry are massive compared with almost every other country yet some of the citizens are denied reasonable care. How the US should solve the problem? I don't know, but Amicus' views are an indication of how divisive health care politics are in the US.

Convoluted at best, dishonest or ignorant at worst: No citizens are denied reasonable care. What with all the Federal and State Welfare programs, mainly for pregnant women who can’t keep a husband, plus State Medicaid programs, there is hardly a single soul left in America without healthcare.

The burden and the cost rises to the private insurance payer as doctors and hospitals must absorb the cost and pass it on to paying customers.

“Free” healthcare in Japan, once touted as a ‘model’ system, is crumbling, as is England’s, because government bureaucracies inherently cost more than private companies as government employees have no incentive to perform. Just like our US Post office, all employees are paid the same without regard as to how ‘good’ they perform their job.

Once upon a time in the 1960’s, I marched around a Federal Court House with a sign, “Medicare is Socialized Medicine!” It made the front page of the Honolulu Advertiser in Hawaii, but accomplished very little else, save name recognition for yours truly.

I can understand the apathy of those forced to pay for nationalized healthcare and have no other choice; you may as well take what you get and claim it is a filet and not the hamburger helper we all know it is.

America already has socialized medicine; we just don’t admit it.

Amicus...

 

[oggbashan]

... May I suggest you read or re-read the link provided that notes the changes in the NHS are the most drastic since 1948. Now that is 62 years ago and it took the Soviet Union, that graveyard of socialism, 75 years to rot away.

The changes are proposals that aren't even formalised yet. They are suggestions.

You offer the above with no documentation and even if you did, the measuring tools are suspect as without Blacks and Hispanics and Illegal’s in the US, life expectancy becomes a plus factor in a free society.

amicus is stating clearly that Blacks and Hispanics are not US citizens. What about Native Americans? Are they excluded from his US as well?

In the UK, our NHS does not distinguish those wanting health care by race, colour nor creed. The NHS will even treat US, or any country's, citizens but will expect to be paid for that treatment - after treatment has been given.

If one is forced to support the NHS by taxation, it comes as no surprise that alternative health systems are sought by those who can afford it; that is called, ‘Black Market’ in most oppressive societies.

It is not a black market. It is a perfectly legitimate and profitable business that complements the NHS.

No rant, Ogg, and you know it. Britain Nationalized healthcare in 1948; the government took over private health providers. Many of the highly skilled Medical Practitioners said, “Hell, No”, and ‘brain drained’ to America before the British Government forbid them to leave.

You don’t have a leg to stand on, Ogg; when government is the only working opportunity to any professional, they have no choice of any other employment and are thus, ‘conscripted’ into service to the State and are given no choice as to compensation, time or method of service.

What happened in 1948 bears no resemblance to the NHS of 2010, nor to health care in this country. As I said, and illustrated by the examples of my daughter and son-in-law, you can be a medical professional, including a doctor, yet do not have to work for the NHS. There is no 'conscription' and their compensation, time or method of service are negotiable just as are any employees employed by a commercial company.

Many of those "working" in the NHS are not employees but sub-contractors or agency staff. Their conditions of work are freely negotiated and yes, that includes many doctors. amicus, as usual, is ranting from ignorance because government was not in 1948, is not in 2010 and will not be the only working opportunity for doctors and other medical professionals. Indeed in a previous managerial capacity I employed a full time doctor and three full-time nurses and many more doctors on a fee for an individual consultation for one of my staff. The latter doctors were NHS staff working outside their NHS contracts which they were and are allowed to do.

The Brit’s ousted Churchill and went with Labor after WW2, ‘Labor’ in England is a synonym for Socialist. It comes as no surprise to me that most Englishmen hate to be called socialists, but if it walks like a….?

Labour in England (never Labor!) is not a synonym for Socialist except in amicus' fantasies. The true Socialists as defined by the Communist Manifesto or even as by amicus were banned by the Labour Party, tried to get back in under a different name and were banned again. The current Labour Party, as reinvented by Prime Minister Balir and his immediate predecessors has completely rejected the sort of modified socialism (with a lower case 's') that was advocated by the Labour Government in 1945.

Convoluted at best, dishonest or ignorant at worst: No citizens are denied reasonable care.

Your definition of "reasonable" is what is dishonest.

What with all the Federal and State Welfare programs, mainly for pregnant women who can’t keep a husband, plus State Medicaid programs, there is hardly a single soul left in America without healthcare.

Bullshit! There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of "souls" in America without healthcare. Of course, they are perhaps, black, or Hispanic, or illegal, so you don't count them.

“Free” healthcare in Japan, once touted as a ‘model’ system, is crumbling, as is England’s, because government bureaucracies inherently cost more than private companies as government employees have no incentive to perform. Just like our US Post office, all employees are paid the same without regard as to how ‘good’ they perform their job.

I have shown many times and so have others that US health care costs MUCH MORE per head of population than almost any other developed country while not providing full cover for all. Your private health care companies and health insurance companies are charging US citizens far more than UK, or most European citizens pay and yet they deliver less, weazling out with 'unapproved' procedures, pre-existing conditions, and outright refusal or excessive premiums to cover individuals considered an unacceptable risk (to their profits).

I can understand the apathy of those forced to pay for nationalized healthcare and have no other choice; you may as well take what you get and claim it is a filet and not the hamburger helper we all know it is.

America already has socialized medicine; we just don’t admit it.

Amicus...

More of your usual bullshit. I have shown again and again that we in the UK have choice and we pay LESS. If you don't accept that there are many people living legally in the US that cannot obtain reasonable health care then you are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land, not the Land of the Free.

Og

 

[Handley_Page]

Dear Oggbashan, Liar & Handley Page...


To return to 'Universal Healthcare', the phrase chosen to be as neutral as one can be, the concept is morally and ethically flawed from the beginning.

It is flawed because it violates an hierarchy of human values that begins with individual life and liberty, thus choice resides in the individual concerning all human actions. [ 1 ]

The imposition [2] of an health care plan on any given society involves the use of force or coercion in at least two ways: first, you must compel the providers of medical service to accede to your demands and accept your terms; second, you must impose taxation upon the public at large to fund such services. [ 3 ]

There is a third and compelling reason to reject the concept of Universal Healthcare, as illustrated by the referenced failure [ 4 ] in England.

As much as proponents of Altruism exhort, without personal benefit, the profit motive, there is no motivation to perform above the level of the lowest common denominator. [ 5 ]

A fourth and final reason that all such collective ventures must inevitably fail, is that the institutions of government are constructed and maintained so as to expand both the size and scope of the agency or department involved.

Union control and protectionism makes it almost impossible to dispose of a poor employee and, in their own best interests, they continually press for higher salaries and wages and benefit programs, including retirement perquisites, that outstrip and exceed that which the tax paying public that supports them can achieve in the private sector.

I often wonder why some advocates of collective or semi collective schemes reject the free market solution since the success of the market place is so obvious in so many places.

Is it perhaps that few have ever been exposed to the mechanics of the market place? Is the term, 'profit motive,' so horrific, that you will not even consider it as a moral virtue?

I would also offer that the Medical profession, world wide, acts as one interconnected, giant Union or old fahioned Guild Society. The profession allows only so many practitioners in any given year and limits the number of medical students in universities around the world to maintain the high price and cost of medical service.[ 6 ]

I suppose it is an object of irony then, that these privileged Doctors are in fact 'drafted' into compulsory service in all Universal Health Plans, perhaps they deserve to be enslaved after all? [ 7 ]

Amicus....not without a sense of humor....

Oh Dear me. Not much to agree with there, I fear.

1] Individual "Life & Liberty" (in England at the very least) were not self-awarded on the grounds that it was 'a good thing', unlike the good citizens of the USA, whose forefathers didn't like hwat was going on where they were. Such was their right.
We've had civil wars, riots & strikes to get here.

2] the Health Care Plan is NOT imposed upon the UK citizenry, who are at liberty to source their Medical Care to any number of alternative organisations.

3] There's a fine line between the imposition of a Tax, per se, and a levied contribution for Insurance purposes. By comparison to what I hear of the USA system of Profit first, Patient second (with the odd exception or Pro Bono), it's bot expensive.

4] There's going to be some dispute about what constitutes a failure, in this context. You'll forgive me if I deny a failure.

5] The Medical profession is, generally speaking, one of the few professions where profit is not the motive. The health of the patient, on the other hand, really IS. (Doctors in England tend not to make the vast, almost egregious, salaries often quoted in the USA medical fraternity).

I get the impression that this view has been reinforced by loads of American TV shows featuring the medical profession.

6] There's only a limited number of Hospitals in England, and thus a limited availability of space to train Doctors.

7] They are NOT 'drafted' or even 'conscripted'. They are at liberty to return to their country and practice, or work in the private sector or whatever/ wherever they like.

 

[Seduc1ove]

The concept on inalienable rights as with everything in the constitution is written in a way that allows for interpretation. That flexibility is one of the strengths of those documents. The haves/have nots is a little different when the haves control around 93% of the wealth and the majority of people (80%) control only the remaining 7%. As I said the other strength we have is the balance we strike between incentivising hard work and spreading equality. We've been too far down one side allowing the greedy to take hold and now we have to push a little the other way to right the ship.

Also, did he just blame our high death rate on blacks, hispanics, and illegal immigrants?

 

[amicus]

One would think, innocently approaching Ogg and Handley's lengthy and intimate defense of nationalized health care, that there is only one side to the discussion or argument and they are on the 'right' side.

Balderdash!

Ogg, over the years, has become so condescending and vituperative in his interminable and righteous defense of socialism, that one might well understand his standing in the religious world as an ordained Minister. (he is, by the by, so am I)

The British do not have a Constitution that defines the function of government and enumerates the individual rights of its' citizens; and of course, they have no 'Declaration of Independence', as it was against those twits that the Colonies rebelled.

I lost whatever small amount of respect for the Brit's upon hearing Beatle Paul McCartney's criticism of former President Bush recently during a command performance for the Obama tribe.

I digress here, to define and clarify my objections to Ogg & friends:

misleads
distorts reality
pretends to communicate
makes the bad seem good
avoids or shifts responsibility
makes the negative appear positive
creates a false verbal map of the world
limits, conceals, corrupts, and prevents thought
makes the unpleasant appear attractive or tolerable
creates incongruity between reality and what is said or not said

History of the Word "Doublespeak"

As these attributes indicate, doublespeak can be seen as analogous to doublethink and Newspeak, concepts created by George Orwell in 1984. Using doublethink, a person could hold two opposing ideas in his or her mind at the same time, fully believing in both ideas. "Newspeak" was the official language used to express the ideas of doublethink.

***

Ogg and Handley, to reference just the most recent, labor! mightily to convince the reader that slavery is freedom, as per the above.

Ogg feistily insists that Britain's Nationalized Health care isn't really nationalized (look the word up), and that an entire people taxed to support NHS, didn't really have it imposed upon them.

The rhetoric of both the above aformentioned is so strikingly 'doublespeak' or 'newspeak', that I am amazed that both carry it off with aplomb. or, the perpendicularity of a master orator.

National Health Care, the NHS, is not free market mechanics providing a service, now is it?

If it is not free market, then it is a controlled market, eh? By definition no less?

Ah, the degree of control, the devil in the details, aye?

Socialists, or Progressives, if you prefer, are so righteously convinced that health care is a 'human right', that all people should be endowed with, that they fail, or refuse, to consider any opposing thoughts.

The skills and proficiencies that any man individually acquires, are the means by which he provides for himself and his family. In a free society, a man offers his services to the highest bidder, the one who will pay him the most, profit motive, and to whom the employed owes some varying amount of alliegiance.

Ogg would have us believe, I know not why, that a medical doctor, having acquired the skills, would readily submit his abilities and income to the arbitrary compensation and work ethic of the 150 health czars that rule the NHS.

I mean, we all know the litany, Solidarity, 'one for all, all for one', 'from each...' and so on; and there is the mythical conception that medicine, a commodity, is actually something sacred, a public service never denied, and owed to all.

More balderdash.

Britain, and most of Europe, still carries the baggage of a Class system, and perhaps even yearns for its' return, wherein each peasant knew his place and that, was on his knees before the landed gentry and Royal Blood.

Therefore, the concept of looking to the King or the Duke for care of all kinds, is somewhat inborn to Brits and the sense of Noblesse Oblige, mentioned earlier, that the wealthy have an obligation to care for the poor, has transferred to a benevolent Big Brother, the quasi-Marxists and socialist wannabe's.

I feel sorry for you, Ogg, Handley, et al; you really do not see your socialist dilemma; you do not and have never understood the very concept of individual freedom and responsibility, and it shows, unerringly, in every word you utter.

Here are some basics.

You have no right to the services of others.

You have no right to force others to provide for you.

Human values, rights, morals and ethics, are all derived from the individual existence, not the collective.

For 40 years I listened to and read the glowing reports of communal well being and excellent medical facilities in the Soviet Union. Now I listen to and read the same tripe from the Peoples Republic of England.

Who do you think you are kidding?

Amicus

 

[Seduc1ove]

And I thought they were just providing solid, logical, well thought-out arguments using facts and empirical evidence to support their statements.

 

[amicus]

And I thought they were just providing solid, logical, well thought-out arguments using facts and empirical evidence to support their statements.

~~~

On this entire page, show me one, just one fact or one iota of empirical evidence?



Amicus

 

[amicus]

The concept on inalienable rights as with everything in the constitution is written in a way that allows for interpretation. That flexibility is one of the strengths of those documents. The haves/have nots is a little different when the haves control around 93% of the wealth and the majority of people (80%) control only the remaining 7%. As I said the other strength we have is the balance we strike between incentivising hard work and spreading equality. We've been too far down one side allowing the greedy to take hold and now we have to push a little the other way to right the ship.

Also, did he just blame our high death rate on blacks, hispanics, and illegal immigrants?

~~~

The Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are written in such a declarative manner that forbids subjective interpretation, and makes it very difficult to Amend or change any of our founding documents.

You cannot spread equality, my friend, it is earned. Take for example the disastrous civil rights act of 1964, the Affirmative action, institutionalized racial prejudice against the majority and the terrible state of affairs of the vast welfare programs that have destroyed the function of the black father in African American families.

And, yes, to your last paragraph. Look up the statistics on 'crack babies', premature babies and death from drug overdose; predominately African Americans.

Add to that the millions of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America who bring all kinds of diseases into the US and whose children usually did not receive prenatal medical care or post natal immunization procedures.

Before you gasp in disbelief about anything I say...look it up...I never post anything that I cannot document.

But I am not your mentor, I just hope that something I write might open your eyes or at least make you question your faith.

Amicus

 

[oggbashan]

~~~

On this entire page, show me one, just one fact or one iota of empirical evidence?



Amicus

You wouldn't recognise any if you saw it.

In 1945, the British voters voted overwhelmingly for the Labour Party who had detailed exactly what they intended to do. The people chose to have a National Health Service.

At every election since then, the electorate have made it very clear to candidates of all political parties that they support the National Health Service.

We chose it. We supported and support it. It exists and continues to exist because it has overwhelming popular support.

The NHS probably wouldn't suit the US. How health care is provided in the US is a different problem and no solution has overwhelming popular support. But you, amicus, consistently suggest that the NHS is failing and cannot possibly survive. You are wrong. It has flaws. One of its major problems is too much governmental interference and micromanagement from Westminster. The current suggestions are one way of looking at reducing that interference.

As for the Constitution, yes we in the UK don't have a written one like the US one that posters in the AH constantly quote. Instead we have a whole system of precedents and agreements that have evolved over nearly 1000 years, including the Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights. Part of the reason for the unrest in the 13 Colonies that led to the War of Independence was that the rights enjoyed in England did not apply in the 13 Colonies. That was unjust. If those rights had applied? Perhaps there wouldn't have been a Declaration of Independence - an interesting What If?

Og

PS. As for doublespeak? If any poster on this and similar threads is guilty of it, it can only be amicus himself.

PPS For those vaguely interested in Constitutions, here is a text of the 1689 Bill Of Rights signed by William and Mary:

English Bill of Rights 1689

An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown
Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight [old style date] present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following, viz.:

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;

By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power;

By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;

By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;

By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;

By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;

By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament;

By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses;

And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were not freeholders;

And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects;

And excessive fines have been imposed;

And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted;

And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied;

All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm;

And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six hundred eighty and eight [old style date], in order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections having been accordingly made;

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;

And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein. Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness the prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights and liberties, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster do resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be and be declared king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during their lives and the life of the survivor to them, and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in and executed by the said prince of Orange in the names of the said prince and princess during their joint lives, and after their deceases the said crown and royal dignity of the same kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said princess, and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do pray the said prince and princess to accept the same accordingly.

And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whom the oaths have allegiance and supremacy might be required by law, instead of them; and that the said oaths of allegiance and supremacy be abrogated.

I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God.

I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.

Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said declaration. And thereupon their Majesties were pleased that the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their Majesties' royal concurrence make effectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted, to which the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons did agree, and proceed to act accordingly. Now in pursuance of the premises the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration and the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by the force of law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all time to come. And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in his marvellous providence and merciful goodness to this nation to provide and preserve their said Majesties' royal persons most happily to reign over us upon the throne of their ancestors, for which they render unto him from the bottom of their hearts their humblest thanks and praises, do truly, firmly, assuredly and in the sincerity of their hearts think, and do hereby recognize, acknowledge and declare, that King James the Second having abdicated the government, and their Majesties having accepted the crown and royal dignity as aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, are and of right ought to be by the laws of this realm our sovereign liege lord and lady, king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, in and to whose princely persons the royal state, crown and dignity of the said realms with all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully, rightfully and entirely invested and incorporated, united and annexed. And for preventing all questions and divisions in this realm by reason of any pretended titles to the crown, and for preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon which the unity, peace, tranquility and safety of this nation doth under God wholly consist and depend, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do beseech their Majesties that it may be enacted, established and declared, that the crown and regal government of the said kingdoms and dominions, with all and singular the premises thereunto belonging and appertaining, shall be and continue to their said Majesties and the survivor of them during their lives and the life of the survivor of them, and that the entire, perfect and full exercise of the regal power and government be only in and executed by his Majesty in the names of both their Majesties during their joint lives; and after their deceases the said crown and premises shall be and remain to the heirs of the body of her Majesty, and for default of such issue to her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of the body of his said Majesty; and thereunto the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do in the name of all the people aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities for ever, and do faithfully promise that they will stand to, maintain and defend their said Majesties, and also the limitation and succession of the crown herein specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers with their lives and estates against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary. And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance; and the said crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion or professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead; and that every king and queen of this realm who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the imperial crown of this kingdom shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the crown, sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled, or at his or her coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath to him or her at the time of his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen), make, subscribe and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned in the statute made in the thirtieth year of the reign of King Charles the Second entitled, _An Act for the more effectual preserving the king's person and government by disabling papists from sitting in either House of Parliament._ But if it shall happen that such king or queen upon his or her succession to the crown of this realm shall be under the age of twelve years, then every such king or queen shall make, subscribe and audibly repeat the same declaration at his or her coronation or the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament as aforesaid which shall first happen after such king or queen shall have attained the said age of twelve years. All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared, enacted and established by authority of this present Parliament, and shall stand, remain and be the law of this realm for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same, declared, enacted and established accordingly.

II. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament no dispensation by _non obstante_ of or to any statute or any part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament.

III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made.

 

[Pure]

electorates

ogg made some excellent points about the NHS and its history. this whole thread began with misconceptions: that REVISIONS of a national system amount to rejection of it. revisions are happening in several european countries, france, sweden, etc. *without eliminating the basic principle that all persons are covered and that the way to go is an insurance principle, NOT fee for service on the "free market", which doesn't exist, nor fees to private entities which have monopolistic practices and decide who will be covered: US system.

the basic point that electorates in great britain, france, holland, belgium norway, sweden, finland, spain, japan, etc. [all advanced countries, in ecomomic terms] have quasi socialized schemes. NONE of their major parties support rejection; but there is much tinkering and revision, since declining and aging populations make huge demands.
the American right have a great problem with free elections, hence the efforts to sabotage the mildl Democratic reforms of the private system, recently put in place ["Obamacare"], which will still leave

about 20 million persons UNcovered:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0323/Obama-signs-health-care-bill-Who-won-t-be-covered

Signs indicate that some 23 million Americans will lack insurance in 2019, after key provisions of the law have been in effect for as long as five or six years, according to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate. Meanwhile, the law would insure some 32 million people who otherwise would be uninsured in that year.


OGG, as to you last point:

Part of the reason for the unrest in the 13 Colonies that led to the War of Independence was that the rights enjoyed in England did not apply in the 13 Colonies. That was unjust.

You concede far too much. The actual lack of "rights" was minor problem that would have been resolved, as it was with other Brit colonies, e.g. Canada. The simple fact is that americans, after their war, constitution, bill of rights, e.g. in the year 1792, enjoyed no rights that Brits lacked. Indirect election of a Senate and a President, by white males who owned property was scarcely that big a novelty. In this new 'republic' of rich white males, like Washington, John Adams, Jefferson--all slave holders, incidentally-- such rights of free speech and due process in criminal matters were indeed written down, but they existed equally in Britain. And indeed, within a few years the Brits would abolish slavery, w/o bloodshed, in 1833, decades ahead of the US.

That rich whites obtained 'home rule' by their war-- not unlike the efforts of white rhodesians to obtain the same-- is not an advance of rights for the general populace. And even the rich males would have been accomodated [as to 'unfair taxation'] as they were in Canada, Australia and so on.

I challenge anyone to point to a "right" of Americans in 1792 or 1800 which was NOT enjoyed in Britain, and i mean something *practiced*, not words on paper.

no, i am not a Brit, and the British system is inferior to those in Scandinavian countries, for various reasons. It's these i support personally, as well as the Canadian system.

====


OGG said, You wouldn't recognise any if you saw it.

In 1945, the British voters voted overwhelmingly for the Labour Party who had detailed exactly what they intended to do. The people chose to have a National Health Service.

At every election since then, the electorate have made it very clear to candidates of all political parties that they support the National Health Service.

We chose it. We supported and support it. It exists and continues to exist because it has overwhelming popular support.

The NHS probably wouldn't suit the US. How health care is provided in the US is a different problem and no solution has overwhelming popular support. But you, amicus, consistently suggest that the NHS is failing and cannot possibly survive. You are wrong. It has flaws. One of its major problems is too much governmental interference and micromanagement from Westminster. The current suggestions are one way of looking at reducing that interference.

As for the Constitution, yes we in the UK don't have a written one like the US one that posters in the AH constantly quote. Instead we have a whole system of precedents and agreements that have evolved over nearly 1000 years, including the Magna Carta and the 1688 Bill of Rights. Part of the reason for the unrest in the 13 Colonies that led to the War of Independence was that the rights enjoyed in England did not apply in the 13 Colonies. That was unjust. If those rights had applied? Perhaps there wouldn't have been a Declaration of Independence - an interesting What If?

 

[patrick1]

~~~

On this entire page, show me one, just one fact or one iota of empirical evidence?



Amicus

Here is a website which analyses comparative health costs, sourced from the OECD:

http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/universal.htm

On it you will see that health expenditures per capita, and health expenditures as a % of gdp, are higher in the United States - much higher - than in any other developed country.

Patrick

 

[Scotsman69]

Ach Amicus (now there's an oxymoron), ye puir numpty

George Orwell, real name Eric Blair, author of '1984', was a socialist all his life. Not a good idea to use him in defence of 'free market' thinking. Like all socialists, he knew the 'free market' is a figment of the imaginations of a few on the more extreme righteous right. It has never existed and never will.

He argued for, wrote for (he was a journalist on a campaigning leftwing weekly), and voted for, the creation of the National Health Service. Which incidentally, is a UK and not an English institution. (Do you know the difference between England and the UK?)

But we all know that logic and knowledge are not your strong points. I'm glad you spend to much time and effort ranting here. It keeps you out of harm's way, puir laddie.

PS. Don't bother asking me to substantiate what I said about Orwell. Just read his books and his biographies, as I have. It took a while.

One would think, innocently approaching Ogg and Handley's lengthy and intimate defense of nationalized health care, that there is only one side to the discussion or argument and they are on the 'right' side.

Balderdash!

Ogg, over the years, has become so condescending and vituperative in his interminable and righteous defense of socialism, that one might well understand his standing in the religious world as an ordained Minister. (he is, by the by, so am I)

The British do not have a Constitution that defines the function of government and enumerates the individual rights of its' citizens; and of course, they have no 'Declaration of Independence', as it was against those twits that the Colonies rebelled.

I lost whatever small amount of respect for the Brit's upon hearing Beatle Paul McCartney's criticism of former President Bush recently during a command performance for the Obama tribe.

I digress here, to define and clarify my objections to Ogg & friends:



***

Ogg and Handley, to reference just the most recent, labor! mightily to convince the reader that slavery is freedom, as per the above.

Ogg feistily insists that Britain's Nationalized Health care isn't really nationalized (look the word up), and that an entire people taxed to support NHS, didn't really have it imposed upon them.

The rhetoric of both the above aformentioned is so strikingly 'doublespeak' or 'newspeak', that I am amazed that both carry it off with aplomb. or, the perpendicularity of a master orator.

National Health Care, the NHS, is not free market mechanics providing a service, now is it?

If it is not free market, then it is a controlled market, eh? By definition no less?

Ah, the degree of control, the devil in the details, aye?

Socialists, or Progressives, if you prefer, are so righteously convinced that health care is a 'human right', that all people should be endowed with, that they fail, or refuse, to consider any opposing thoughts.

The skills and proficiencies that any man individually acquires, are the means by which he provides for himself and his family. In a free society, a man offers his services to the highest bidder, the one who will pay him the most, profit motive, and to whom the employed owes some varying amount of alliegiance.

Ogg would have us believe, I know not why, that a medical doctor, having acquired the skills, would readily submit his abilities and income to the arbitrary compensation and work ethic of the 150 health czars that rule the NHS.

I mean, we all know the litany, Solidarity, 'one for all, all for one', 'from each...' and so on; and there is the mythical conception that medicine, a commodity, is actually something sacred, a public service never denied, and owed to all.

More balderdash.

Britain, and most of Europe, still carries the baggage of a Class system, and perhaps even yearns for its' return, wherein each peasant knew his place and that, was on his knees before the landed gentry and Royal Blood.

Therefore, the concept of looking to the King or the Duke for care of all kinds, is somewhat inborn to Brits and the sense of Noblesse Oblige, mentioned earlier, that the wealthy have an obligation to care for the poor, has transferred to a benevolent Big Brother, the quasi-Marxists and socialist wannabe's.

I feel sorry for you, Ogg, Handley, et al; you really do not see your socialist dilemma; you do not and have never understood the very concept of individual freedom and responsibility, and it shows, unerringly, in every word you utter.

Here are some basics.

You have no right to the services of others.

You have no right to force others to provide for you.

Human values, rights, morals and ethics, are all derived from the individual existence, not the collective.

For 40 years I listened to and read the glowing reports of communal well being and excellent medical facilities in the Soviet Union. Now I listen to and read the same tripe from the Peoples Republic of England.

Who do you think you are kidding?

Amicus

 

[Scotsman69]

PPS. For Amicus.

I just checked. On the latest available UN figures, life expectancy in Cuba is marginally higher that in the USA. (The UK is a lot higher. As are, surprise surprise, most countries with socialised healthcare.)

OK, OK, I know... Goggle and the UN are totally unreliable sources. Because they provide evidence you don't like.

 

[Loring2]

A bigger question ...

And I thought they were just providing solid, logical, well thought-out arguments using facts and empirical evidence to support their statements.

... and just who is it that decides whether an argument is logical and well thought-out; for that matter who is the arbiter of fact and the words empirical and evidence are to be defined by whom?

Certainly not by the proposer of the evidence and since we haven't agreed to an official arbiter we'll just have to get by with rancor and spitefulness.

 

[amicus]

The Thread concerns recent news releases concerning the failure of the NHS in 'England', not GB, as I pointed out earlier. The response, for the most part, has been to defend the NHS and the concept behind it.

In refutation, I offer the following; I will return to the ethical and moral premises behind collectivism in a later post:

***

http://www.expressandstar.com/latest/2008/07/03/sad-tales-of-nhs-failure/

Elderly and women receive poor care...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...les-that-guarantees-failure-says-Civitas.html

The problem is a "deep-seated reluctance in Whitehall to let go of control", the Civitas study found.

It claimed that NHS organisations remain "isolated and risk averse, consumed with internal processes, bureaucracy, and conforming to the latest Government initiative".

The report – "Putting Patients Last: How the NHS keeps the ten commandments of business failure"

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/public_sector/article6733624.ece

4. Assume infallibility. Politicians refer to the NHS as “the envy of the world” but the latest figures found that the UK ranked 16 out of 19 industrialised nations for “amenable mortality” — deaths which should be preventable with good healthcare.[/QUOTE]

http://www.silicon.com/management/cio-insights/2004/07/27/5bn-nhs-it-failure-warning-39122638/

The government's flagship £5bn NHS IT programme could be derailed by insufficient capacity and skills in the health service, poor evaluation of real health benefits and lack of consultation with doctors and nurses, according to a new report.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-forces-wife-hunger-strike.html#ixzz0v7VRdQqn

A wife has gone on hunger strike in protest at the lack of NHS care for her paralysed husband - vowing to starve to death to win the support he needs.
Angela Cavill-Burch, 42, full time carer for quadriplegic husband Terence Burch, 65, says her death may be the only way to force the NHS to provide the help he 'desperately' requires.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...re-is-hole-in-the-heart-of-budget-441327.html

Conservative Reaction: Cameron: NHS failure is 'hole in the heart of Budget'
By Ben Russell, Political Correspondent

In a speech that lasted just 13 minutes, Mr Cameron turned his fire on Mr Brown, mocking claims by the former cabinet secretary Lord Turnbull that Mr Brown was a "Stalinist" with contempt for his colleagues.

He went on: "Let me tell you what the Chancellor's real problem is. It is not that he is a Stalinist who holds all his colleagues in contempt - although I have to say that probably doesn't help. It is that he has wasted money on an industrial scale."

"For 10 years he has been telling us that education is his priority but 40 per cent of primary school leavers can't read properly. For 10 years he has been telling us he wants a competitive economy but you have given us the biggest tax burden in our history.

"For 10 years he has been talking about child poverty - he did it again today - but the number of people living in severe poverty is up by 400,000 and Unicef says that Britain is the worst place in the developed world to bring up children." Mr Cameron said the "hole in the heart of the Budget" was its failure to address the problems of the NHS.

Borrowing over the next five years will total £153bn, Mr Cameron said. "He's built up a pile of debt, so once again where's all the money gone?

"We've had a bonanza of spending on the NHS but nurses have been sacked. He brags about people's long-term security but the pension system's shot to pieces."

The Conservative leader said: "For 10 years he has been telling us about the NHS; today barely a mention.

~~~

That should confirm the 'failure' of the NHS, from a variety of sources; I will deal next with the obscenity of the concept of Universal Healthcare.

Amicus

 

[Seduc1ove]

... and just who is it that decides whether an argument is logical and well thought-out; for that matter who is the arbiter of fact and the words empirical and evidence are to be defined by whom?

Certainly not by the proposer of the evidence and since we haven't agreed to an official arbiter we'll just have to get by with rancor and spitefulness.

The dictionary?

 

[TE999]

All this blather about the millions of uninsured reminds me of the 'millions of homeless' arguments a few years back...which tiurned out to be bogus too.

Most people are uninsured because they choose to be or are too shortsighted or ignorant to purchase any. You can always find a cluster of unfortunates who the 'system' has overlooked or screwed, but a few hundred or even a thousand of them is insufficient to base national policy on. When Liberals encounter opposition they play their same cards...race, victim, class envy and lard their responses with specious arguments

It would be cheaper to open government run free clinics in every town in America where anyone could wander in and be treated. We have them now, but they're called ER's and a lot of them are closing because they're privately owned and they're broke.

The UK and Europe jumped on the Socialist bandwagon many years ago because it was an extension of the ingrained class system and noblesse obliege, now the unproductive outnumber the productive and the wheels are finally coming off.

The people in this country are finally becoming aware that their rights are being eroded thanks to Obeymes overreaching 'reforms' and Congress' arrogance and they're taking steps to change it.

You keep a government poor and weak it's your servant; when it becomes rich and powerful, it becomes your master.

 

[Dragonlipz]

PPS. For Amicus.

I just checked. On the latest available UN figures, life expectancy in Cuba is marginally higher that in the USA. (The UK is a lot higher. As are, surprise surprise, most countries with socialised healthcare.)

OK, OK, I know... Goggle and the UN are totally unreliable sources. Because they provide evidence you don't like.

Don't try to confuse AmiCoot, TE666, LORING, and the rest with facts.....They have as little use for facts as does their sole source of information: Cluster Fox.......
They're uninformed pinheads who will be featured soon shouting inanities at anyone who will listen at the local town halls..................

 

[Loring2]

Strange idea here Liar ...

The problem with Socialism as well as Capitaism is that both depend on the uncorruprability of the people within the system. Neither has strong enough self correcting mechanisms.

The institutions of Socialism is not good enough to protect it against greed for wealth and power among the political elite that runs it. And laisses faire capitalism, although better, if only as a moral choice, is still doomed to a similar fate, because the same people who are the buerocrat bogeymen in a Rand nightmare would then be corporatists, segmenting and stagnating the market for conservation of financial power. And the better mousetrap would have a snowball's chance in hell. Capitalism would eat John Galt alive.

There is a surprisingly simple reason why Socialism doesn't work, that in fact it can never work.

Its primary premise is that All people are equal, in fact are of equal worth.

This is an absurd premise on the face of itself. Obviously individuals are not equal, never, not even when they appear to be because nuances matter.

The idea of equality in all probability arises from certain biblical passages even though the passages refer to "equal in the eyes of God" a vastly different thing from being truly equal and it arises again in the early constitutional papers where 'equal under the constitution' appears and has somewhat become a playground term.

We may be equal but if so its true in few areas if any at all.

Socialism relies on the equality of humans, it doesn't exist,

 

[TE999]

Since Eric Blair's name has come up...

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

'Animal Farm', 1945

And that, boys and girls is why utopian Socialism (and it's half-brother Communisim)never works and never will work...for very long anyway.

 

[djserani]

Since Eric Blair's name has come up...

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

'Animal Farm', 1945

And that, boys and girls is why utopian Socialism (and it's half-brother Communisim)never works and never will work...for very long anyway.

Right. Because too many people insist that their needs are more important than anyone else's and that they deserve more. Not equal, more.

The underlying problem with ANY human-run system is that it's run by humans. While there are people out there who regularly put others before themselves, the default is greed. Pure and simple.

And I know who is the worst at it. WHich is why I don't vote for them (*coughrepugnicanscough*)

 

[TE999]

Right. Because too many people insist that their needs are more important than anyone else's and that they deserve more. Not equal, more.

The underlying problem with ANY human-run system is that it's run by humans. While there are people out there who regularly put others before themselves, the default is greed. Pure and simple.

And I know who is the worst at it. WHich is why I don't vote for them (*coughrepugnicanscough*

If you vote Democrat, you vote for pseudo-Socialisim...plain and simple...and since Socialisim doesn't work in the real world...you are essentially supporting candidates that espouse a failed concept. I would rather be governed by Republican business people than Democratic 'politicians for life' that have never met a payroll or know what it's like to work for a living.

No Democrat's ever going to make things 'equal' for everyone and those who've tried have failed (think LBJ and now Obeyme)...anyone who thinks otherwise better lay off the Kool-Aid.

Republican's aren't perfect...but neither are Democrats...who, by the way, have more millionaires in elected office than Republican's do...and since all millionaires gained their wealth by exploiting the 'working man', that's not very 'fair' now, is it?

 

[djserani]

If you vote Democrat, you vote for pseudo-Socialisim...plain and simple...and since Socialisim doesn't work in the real world...you are essentially supporting candidates that espouse a failed concept. I would rather be governed by Republican business people than Democratic 'politicians for life' that have never met a payroll or know what it's like to work for a living.

I'm going to let the comment slide that all Democrats don't know what it's like to work for a living. I'm a democrat and I've been in the workforce (at 37) for over 23 years. I've only ever been out of work twice. I'm letting it slide because you obviously don't know how to think for yourself and, as such, are not intellectually capable of thinking about the feelings of others.

Ahem.

I'll take a risk of failed, but attempted equality over greed any day.

 

[patrick1]

The Thread concerns recent news releases concerning the failure of the NHS in 'England', not GB, as I pointed out earlier. The response, for the most part, has been to defend the NHS and the concept behind it.

In refutation, I offer the following;

~~~[various quotes]

That should confirm the 'failure' of the NHS, from a variety of sources.

Amicus

Well, what is offered here is a series of anecdotes, not research evidence, and opinions from politicians and right-wing think-tanks quoted by the press. I don't really understand why this might be regarded as evidence or refutation of anything.

The one second-hand reference to evidence I could trace in the post refers to 'amenable mortality', OECD data on the rate of deaths preventable had proper medical help been provided. (1) This is not wholly accepted as a criterion for judging international health care for various reasons, especially uncertainty about whether different countries measure the same thing in the same way; (2) the UK, while indeed low in the list, has been improving considerably in the past fifteen years but has for the present decided not to regard this as particular evidence of improving health care because of (1); and (3) 'The United States ranks poorly in terms of life expectancy at birth, infant mortality and “amenable mortality” (i.e. mortality that can be averted by good health care).' This from the OECD: http://www.oecd.org/document/51/0,3343,en_2649_34117_41809843_1_1_1_1,00.html

I'm happy to discuss things based on evidence. The NHS IT project quoted by Amicus, while not actually relating to the health of the healthcare system as a whole, has been a truly terrible project from start to finish, and there is an interesting debate to be had about whether such a centralised large-scale IT project is intrinsically a bad idea.

But all this name-calling and argument from dead theory seems beside the point. I am a socialist at heart and I tell you - the idea of socialism is dead in the public world. Why are you still fighting it? Don Quixotes amid windmills? The world has moved on and completely different challenges about the ways we organise to provide food, energy and material things for ourselves are much more important.

Patrick