quote Originally posted by Gandalf: Thank you. This is the first time anyone has made a truly reasoned (and without checking, I assume fairly accurate) comment about the NHS. It makes me sick though that this thread has run to several pages, included you posting information that I'm sure Cliffw would rather didn't surface unless he brought it up (wow, great civility and decorum there, way to go) and all in all most of it has been largely irrelevant. You behave like the guy who just CAN'T LET IT GO. The thread was clearly political from the title. This is a 'self moderated' forum - therefore your best action would be to give the OP a neg for not marking it appropriately, and SHUTTING THE **** UP. You've shown you can make constructive, relevant contributions to the thread, why don't you keep your contributions as such. You go on saying that Cliff spends his time (his time IS money) on providing you with the ability to filter threads you don't want to look at, well the other thing that costs Cliff is server resource, which your relentless, frustrating posts erode on every thread like this. The reason a good number of people mock you for this behaviour, is because you don't seem to get the message. The majority of people here couldn't care less what the thread is tagged as. That's why *most* people ignore you. But you are a constant presence that makes it difficult for the rest of us who aren't as anally retentive as you to enjoy constructive debate. I remind you of a famous quote by Albert Einstein : Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Are you insane, JazzMan, or do you just have nothing better to do? EDIT: To say sorry for bringing this up again, I got so wound up when I saw JM's comment after reading through 3 pages of crap first. Back to your regularly scheduled program...

What a load of cack...Gotta say, up until this very moment I respected you. I no longer do. Therefor your suggestions, comments, thoughts, and words no longer have any meaning to me, as I'm sure mine don't to you. As to CliffW, if he doesn't want people to know how his personal life is spiraling down the shittter he probably ought not to continue complaining about it so relentlessly here in public. In fact, I'm surprised he's posted any of it here at all because modern employers are more likely than ever to look up what prospective employees leave on the net for others to see. Were I as a hiring manager to see any of his posts here about his various intoxication and DWI arrests and his propensity to quit his job on a whim I would never hire him. Too much liability, not enough reliability, and the fact he even posts about it so publicly would make me question his rationality.

As to the comment about Cliff's server resources, perhaps you should think about that for a minute? Seriously... Want to count bits?



Edit to maybe add, something, I'll come back to it later...still trying to wade through the explosive verbiage of CliffW's last post.

Edit 2: Nope, nothing to add. CliffW's words speak more eloquently illustrate my point than anything I can write...

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 04-07-2011).]

Thanks Jizzy. Just when I thought my fun for the day was over.
Let me finish your last, unfinished, post. I will fix it for you.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: What a load of cack...Gotta say, up until this very moment I respected you. I no longer do. Therefor your suggestions, comments, thoughts, and words no longer have any meaning to me, as I'm sure mine don't to you. As to CliffW, if he doesn't want people to know how his personal life is spiraling down the shittter he probably ought not to continue complaining about it so relentlessly here in public. In fact, I'm surprised he's posted any of it here at all because modern employers are more likely than ever to look up what prospective employees leave on the net for others to see. Were I as a hiring manager to see any of his posts here about his various intoxication and DWI arrests and his propensity to quit his job on a whim I would never hire him. Too much liability, not enough reliability, and the fact he even posts about it so publicly would make me question his rationality. As to the comment about Cliff's server resources, perhaps you should think about that for a minute? Seriously... Want to count bits? My mission all along was, is, and )

...and too always waste bits to get my way. Should it save bits for Cliff, that is good too.
Does that sound about right Jizzy?
Hey good buddy, I beat you to the post.

quote clitw the twitw Thank you sir. Truthfully though, I am who I am. I know who I am and who I was. I don't mind any of Jiizzy's information on me surfacing. It is information I not only brought up, but I also posted it. Fact is, I open my closet of skeletons for anybody. Anything I should be ashamed of, I am. I am not much of a bragger though. Hell, I don't even mind that his assertations make me look bad. I am who I am even though his beliefs are wrong. I will allow any to judge me. What pisses me off more than his mischaracterization of my being is the fact that not only will he not hit the back button or ignore a post, it's that he want's us to hear him whine about it.

quote [B]Originally posted by JazzMan: Edit to maybe add, something, I'll come back to it later...still trying to wade through the explosive verbiage of CliffW's last post.

I'll be waiting for you best buddy. How much can you take ? I can take a lot. I dish out a lot too, .

Sometimes when I pee it smells like Asparagoose.....

Hey good buddy, sorry but, I have got to get my unemployed azz back up to Lubbock. A beer in one hand, two in the other. Plenty of more in the back. On ice.
Perhaps you would do me a favor. I am driving an 05 Toyota Tacoma 4X4 extended cab. Color is (Toyota label) Raceway Blue. My tag # is TX 48F SL2. I'll be going IH 10 west to Junction then north on Hwy 83 to Bollinger. I am then gonna take FM158 to Hwy 70N, going on to Sweetwater to hit socialist Interstate 20. Then a short west jog to 84N (northwest really) and then into Lubbock.
Perhaps, if it is not too much trouble, (a life not lost might be worth your effort), you could notify every jurisdiction along the way. Tell 'em I will be veering, weaving, and swerving their way. Ask them to clear the roads for me. Just the southbound lanes will do as I always drive on the wrong side of the road when I am drinking. Wait wait. I might be too drunk and go south. Better clear 'em both.
All I got to do before I leave is figure out where this unemployed azz is gonna get the money for gas. I've got beer and ice.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 04-07-2011).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: What a load of cack...Gotta say, up until this very moment I respected you. I no longer do. Therefor your suggestions, comments, thoughts, and words no longer have any meaning to me, as I'm sure mine don't to you. As to CliffW, if he doesn't want people to know how his personal life is spiraling down the shittter he probably ought not to continue complaining about it so relentlessly here in public. In fact, I'm surprised he's posted any of it here at all because modern employers are more likely than ever to look up what prospective employees leave on the net for others to see. Were I as a hiring manager to see any of his posts here about his various intoxication and DWI arrests and his propensity to quit his job on a whim I would never hire him. Too much liability, not enough reliability, and the fact he even posts about it so publicly would make me question his rationality. As to the comment about Cliff's server resources, perhaps you should think about that for a minute? Seriously... Want to count bits? Edit to maybe add, something, I'll come back to it later...still trying to wade through the explosive verbiage of CliffW's last post. Edit 2: Nope, nothing to add. CliffW's words speak more eloquently illustrate my point than anything I can write...

You don't respect this man because of that post?

Wow... I really thought you were trying to make a difference on this forum. I honestly believed that it was your intention to make this a better forum, and not just to troll around.

... I was wrong.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Quit eating asparagus.

But i'm smoking it!
At least untill the supositories come out.......

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: At least untill the supositories come out.......

If they come out you ain't pushing them in far enough.


Threads like this make baby Jebus cry.

If you can't explain it than you don't get it either.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: If you can't explain it than you don't get it either.

Some things are best left to ponder...

nm

[This message has been edited by Gandalf (edited 04-08-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: I don't get it. I'm not too proud to ask for some help here.

I think he meant that our insurance companies are charging us way more than it should cost, but because we'd be without healthcare without them, we think they're awesome.

I think. Sorry Pat, it really wasn't that clear. It did take quite a bit of squinting.

So... to get this thread going again, because I do find it interesting... I wonder perhaps if there would be any way to do this, but have it be fiscally responsible as well.

The first problem I see, is the issue of being forced to buy insurance. We can argue back and forth whether or not that is constitutional or not, but it's somewhat obvious that in terms of the US constitution, it probably isn't. That is why they worded it very carefully in that they made it a fine for not participating, rather than a fee for joining.

You could essentially mandate this in some way by offering it in terms of federalism. It might be more compatible with our federal constitution if the mandate was pushed by the state. The state could then decide either way how they wanted to go about it. I like the idea of being able to live, without ever having to buy a thing. Let's say I own property out in the mountains that another family member pays taxes on. I could essentially live on the land, grow my own food, blah blah, never work a day in my life, and that would be my right as a US citizen. Heck, I could live in a national preserve and live off the land if I wanted to, and then property taxes would never be assessed either, and I'd be within my right. Of course I would never live like that, but that's the essential basis or foundation of our freedom... how much success we choose to aspire from at that point, is up to us.

Anyway, if the state had their own programs, they could better facilitate their own people, better manage their own budgets, rather than forcing the entire country to pay for those in particular areas which are the least responsible, or perhaps less efficient. This would free up a lot of money on the Federal level that would then help the states who have other issues (immigration) better care for them. For example, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, wouldn't have to spend as much of their own resources policing parts of the border, and ICE / DHS would be better funded.

There are some other things of course too... tort reform, and allowing you to buy insurance across state lines (in itself, private socialism if you will...). Some states may prefer single-payer, but that would be up to the state.

I like to think that change happens first at the lowest level, not really from the top. So when you force the entire country to suffer, there will be little change. If you spread a "universal health care" program at the state level, rather than the federal level, the individual states might be more apt to improve the health of their own people since the health of the individual will have an immediate and DIRECT effect on the fiscal health of the state. Makes sense, doesn't it?

I think when things are passed at the federal level, the intention is often good, but it creates a disconnect at the state level. I think in part, this is why we're seeing a big resurgence of "states rights" over the past few years.


Let me know what you guys think... or why you disagree (if you do) on having it mandated at a state level rather than a federal level.

it would be something to see if interior states decided NOT to pay for things like national security or border enforcement, because they are not along a border, so they dont actually need to worry directly over such things. that is basicly the model you are building, isnt it?

the whole point of a large nation is in fact to have a larger pool of resources to share resources. why bother having a USA? just have a collection of 50 seperate nations.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: it would be something to see if interior states decided NOT to pay for things like national security or border enforcement, because they are not along a border, so they dont actually need to worry directly over such things. that is basicly the model you are building, isnt it? the whole point of a large nation is in fact to have a larger pool of resources to share resources. why bother having a USA? just have a collection of 50 seperate nations.

Well, according to the constitution, the federal government's primary role is to protect the country from foreign invaders, regulate commerce, and the "general welfare" of the public (which I believe was added afterwards, part of the New Deal?) Someone correct me, but I believe the general welfare clause was added (under which ammendment, I forget) much later in an effort to help facilitate things like bridge building, and such under much of the New Deal.

But technically, border patrol, which is primarily federally funded, shouldn't BE an expense from the state, and never was originally. Even still, ICE has juristiction... when local state enforcement capture illegals, they have to turn them over to federal agents unless they've comitted a crime. So, the states are neither required, nor are they supposed to be managing border patrol, even if they are border states. That should really be at the federal level.

Immigration really is an issue in and of itself. I'd like to see a work-visa program that would make corporations more responsible in not hiring illegals, rather than turning a blind eye (like the orange / juice business does in Orlando, for example), but at the same time, illegals would be given work visas that would automatically take taxes out. Not a ridiculous amount, but enough to subsidize some of the resources that they might be cost differeing from. They wouldn't be eligeble for filing taxes, since they would be taken out at the paycheck level, and that would be that.

I'd be interested to see, really... how RomneyCare has worked in Massachusetts, and whether or not the people in MA are healthier either because of the program, or because the state has encoraged them to do so...

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: ...... I'd be interested to see, really... how RomneyCare has worked in Massachusetts, and whether or not the people in MA are healthier either because of the program, or because the state has encoraged them to do so...

hard to say
but, to me it sounds like seeing how a chaste girl does in a room full of sluts
which basicly is how many of these kinds of things go - they just cant get traction when there are lower standards all around

quote Originally posted by theBDub: I think he meant that our insurance companies are charging us way more than it should cost, but because we'd be without healthcare without them, we think they're awesome. I think. Sorry Pat, it really wasn't that clear. It did take quite a bit of squinting.

That explanation was the only one that came to me, but I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: General welfare was not added, the meaning was just perverted. In fact it is, and this is from memory so be impressed. "We the people of the united states... in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, secure the blessings of liberty, promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense, do ordain and establish...etc. " Promote the general welfare to me sounds like maybe encouraging trade or commerce. But that was the string they hung redistribution of wealth on. I don't think you can force people to engage in commerce. The funny thing is it would be perfectly legal for them to just tax for a service but no one would want it in that case. SS is already forced disability insurance. Pyrthian's point about how the state experiments may not work is the same or maybe the obverse of my point that the socialized systems would not perform as well in a vacuum as they do now. Why should Illinois pay for defense? Why should Canada? So why should Canada pay full price for pharmaceuticals when we are paying extra? Illinois would pay for defense because it would be pretty stupid to think that someone will conquer the US and stop at Indiana or Iowa.

True, however, it's understood clearly, without a doubt, that the framers intended for all the states to pay for the defense of the nation as a whole. According to our constitution, that is set in stone... health care for all is not (as you say).

quote Originally posted by ray b: you repeatedly claim the english health system is exactly the same as obamba's health care law it is not even close the major differences are the english system is paid for by taxes without insurance CORPrats skimming the doctors contract with the government not with a large number of insurance CORPrats hospitals are government owned and operated not our mix of private and local [not feds] county owned and run hospitals obamba's health care has no government ownership of the insurance in fact the single payer plan was killed our only fed owned hospitals are VA that only treats vets and not a part of obamba health plans the two country's have totally different plans that are not even similar let alone the same system and most important the woman in your opening post DIDNOT DIE due to lack of care so the first BIG LIE was she died because the system is screwed up is not true the second BIG LIE was your false claim the english system is the same as obamba care the third BIG LIE was insurance CORPrats are our buddys ''insurance industry is not this big 'boogie man' that is focused on killing people then pocketing a profit ''

ray b,

Gosh, your lack of understanding of the obvious is taking my breath away! I am taking three deep breaths to compose myself and releive some pressure before typing. The health care overhaul Obama is implanting for America is very similar to the English system, in that Obama's plan FORCES you to have it. No one is exempt except for religious reasons. In England as well, you are involved in the health care plan at birth, and it is taxed and taxed many times over from many sources to pay for it. Obamacare says it is not a tax, per se, and this is the liberal, socialist argument, that so many people who are less willing to read and comprehend, and do not understand fall back on their (your) flimsly argument. Obamacare will not take the money from your paycheck, ala England, as a withhlding, rather it will FORCE you to pay a "premium" to be covered for foreseeable and unforseen health care costs. From this argument, Obamacare and the other socialists, say that his plan is not a tax only a cost to have everybody covered. The problem is private health care companies cannot compete against government type health facilities. Second, if it is not a tax, then why does Obamacare (sic) have in the written law, a stipulation, that says if you do not pay your 'premium', then the IRS agents will be coming around to collect the money? If you do not pay, then you can be fined or be thrown in jail. Do not beleive me? Again, read the dang thing! Judge Vincent did and found this Draconian overhaul of liberty unconstitutional!
Finally, this last question is kinda fun to play with the liberal mind. If the big bad insurance companies and the boogie-man oil companies spread the big lie, whatever that is, specifically then why not loop in the 'big bad computer companies' in the same sentence? Surely these companies must also be part of the big lie too. Right?

Cordially,
Kevin

are you saying you werent buying health insurance previously?

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: True, however, it's understood clearly, without a doubt, that the framers intended for all the states to pay for the defense of the nation as a whole. According to our constitution, that is set in stone... health care for all is not (as you say).

Yes. Exactly my meaning. Just like abortion "rights" are "found" in the fourth amendment. It's absolutely clear what was meant for defense, but not quite so clear regarding these new discoveries. Obviously the intention of the founders was to amend the constitution in these cases, but some do not have any respect for process.

quote Originally posted by kevin: ray b, Gosh, your lack of understanding of the obvious is taking my breath away! I am taking three deep breaths to compose myself and releive some pressure before typing. The health care overhaul Obama is implanting for America is very similar to the English system, in that Obama's plan FORCES you to have it. No one is exempt except for religious reasons. In England as well, you are involved in the health care plan at birth, and it is taxed and taxed many times over from many sources to pay for it. Obamacare says it is not a tax, per se, and this is the liberal, socialist argument, that so many people who are less willing to read and comprehend, and do not understand fall back on their (your) flimsly argument. Obamacare will not take the money from your paycheck, ala England, as a withhlding, rather it will FORCE you to pay a "premium" to be covered for foreseeable and unforseen health care costs. From this argument, Obamacare and the other socialists, say that his plan is not a tax only a cost to have everybody covered. The problem is private health care companies cannot compete against government type health facilities. Second, if it is not a tax, then why does Obamacare (sic) have in the written law, a stipulation, that says if you do not pay your 'premium', then the IRS agents will be coming around to collect the money? If you do not pay, then you can be fined or be thrown in jail. Do not beleive me? Again, read the dang thing! Judge Vincent did and found this Draconian overhaul of liberty unconstitutional! Finally, this last question is kinda fun to play with the liberal mind. If the big bad insurance companies and the boogie-man oil companies spread the big lie, whatever that is, specifically then why not loop in the 'big bad computer companies' in the same sentence? Surely these companies must also be part of the big lie too. Right? Cordially, Kevin

1 in england health care funding comes from the taxes paid to the government
under obamba's plan it comes from insurance CORPrats selling the government mandated coverage
much like state required auto insurance

so is auto insurance also socialism as the state requires you to buy auto insurance
but you do NOT BUY from the state but from a CORPrat private insurance company
and dealing with for profit capitalist CORPrats is equal to CAPITALISM NOT socialism

socialism has meaning and is not anything you do not like

IF WE HAD A SINGLE PAYER GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE PROGRAM
then and only then would our system be similar to england's

2 the lady in question didNOT die from lack of care or other bureaucratic problems
or anything related to the socialism you so mislabel and hate
in four pages you still willnot admit any error

3 while you derive income from insurance CORPrats they are a public nuisance in general
and a drain on most all commerce
and far worse then government with arcane rules and random restrictions
of course all are crafted to the sole benefit of the CORPrat masters

quote Originally posted by theBDub: I think he meant that our insurance companies are charging us way more than it should cost, but because we'd be without healthcare without them, we think they're awesome. I think. Sorry Pat, it really wasn't that clear. It did take quite a bit of squinting.

I wasn't keying on the insurance companies, but bringing them into the equation isn't totally inappropriate. You could've however mentioned the pharmaceutical industry, a touch of jingoism perhaps (in regards to Scott's initial comment), and the strange use of the term "awesome" to describe someone/some corporation ripping you off.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: OK so why does the US produce a disproportionate amount of new drugs? Are you ready to admit it's because we are just so awesome?

Jingoism or national pride? BTW awesome was used because over the internet you could not see my tongue in my cheek.
Regardless of whether we pay too much or are being raped by the big evil insurance and / or pharma companies, does the fact that we pay more fund research that the world benefits from? Or is it just a coincidence?

You don't think Canada is awesome? Maybe you should move.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Jingoism or national pride?

Oh, perhaps somewhere in between.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: BTW awesome was used because over the internet you could not see my tongue in my cheek.

That's why smilies were invented.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Regardless of whether we pay too much or are being raped by the big evil insurance and / or pharma companies, does the fact that we pay more fund research that the world benefits from? Or is it just a coincidence?

Sorry, I can't make sense of that question.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: You don't think Canada is awesome? Maybe you should move.

Canada is "awesome" for a hundred reasons, none of which pertain to pharmaceutical production... thank gawd.

No need for me to move. I love it here.

It's funny everyone is allowed to love and boast about their country except for Americans.
Well if you can't understand my questions I can't explain them to you. How's that smiley?

quote Originally posted by ray b: 1 in england health care funding comes from the taxes paid to the government under obamba's plan it comes from insurance CORPrats selling the government mandated coverage much like state required auto insurance so is auto insurance also socialism as the state requires you to buy auto insurance but you do NOT BUY from the state but from a CORPrat private insurance company and dealing with for profit capitalist CORPrats is equal to CAPITALISM NOT socialism socialism has meaning and is not anything you do not like IF WE HAD A SINGLE PAYER GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE PROGRAM then and only then would our system be similar to england's 2 the lady in question didNOT die from lack of care or other bureaucratic problems or anything related to the socialism you so mislabel and hate in four pages you still willnot admit any error 3 while you derive income from insurance CORPrats they are a public nuisance in general and a drain on most all commerce and far worse then government with arcane rules and random restrictions of course all are crafted to the sole benefit of the CORPrat masters

ray b,

Let me assist you in understanding life and in particular insurance and or Obamacare. I will do this not by writing another well written and thoughtful explanation as I did previously following your posts. I will go another directing since obviously, by your replies, you obviously can't read at the same lever as most folks, or perhaps were not give the education beyond a lower lever. That is OK. I am not disrespecting you over this lack of comprehension. A lot of very wealthy and well researched books and articles have been written by people without much more that a high school education. Now with that out of the way, I will choose to help you with a few simple questions. From here, you can (hopefully) reply here on the Forum so my question and elaborate as you wish. In this way we can start with a new paradigm.

Q. 1.) Where in the world DOES single payer health care system work better that what the US has at the moment? I am referring to advancement in technology and research.


Cordially,
Kevin

p.s. I will give you another series of questions, one at a time, once you answer the first question. This I think is a good platform to uncover mis-information. I am waiting..................

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: It's funny everyone is allowed to love and boast about their country except for Americans.

Oh please...

Perhaps for effect you could've put a smiley playing a violin after that comment. Whatever, you've drawn the strangest conclusions from my comments.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Well if you can't understand my questions I can't explain them to you.

Maybe theBDub will be along shortly to offer his interpretation.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: How's that smiley?

I like it. Keep smiling!

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Q. 2.) How does advanced technology and research assist someone in the US who has no private health care when they're sick?

Answer 2.)
The technology exists.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Q. 2.) How does advanced technology and research assist someone in the US who has no private health care when they're sick?

And so do the careers of lab assistance, doctors, clean-room manufactures, engineers, software personnel, new company's that begin from new ways of conquering a new problem, stock IPO's.....I can go on and on but my point is obvious.

Cordially,
Kevin

p.s. ray b did you run and hide? I hope not, since many of us our waiting for your answer to the question queried....

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Answer 2.) The technology exists.

Ferrari exists as well, but I won't be making much use of their technology.

quote Originally posted by kevin: And so do the careers of lab assistance, doctors, clean-room manufactures, engineers, software personnel, new company's that begin from new ways of conquering a new problem, stock IPO's.....I can go on and on but my point is obvious. Cordially, Kevin p.s. ray b did you run and hide? I hope not, since many of us our waiting for your answer to the question queried....

first you admit your opening post was untrue

quote Originally posted by ray b: first you admit your opening post was untrue

OK, even though it is obvious you are hiding and wish to slink away unnoticed. I will bight; what is my opening statement? After I answer my own opening statement (how does that work?), you can't then say: "second you have to admit your SECOND post was untrue". Then you are going to ask me for my THIRD statement then my FOURTH and so on...... Do this so all the PFF members can understand you, answer my question, won't you?

Cordially,
Kevin

quote Originally posted by kevin: Fellas, Did your hear what just happened in Great Britain? The lady who was in charge of their entire health department just died! She had a stomach ache and was scheduled for surgery. Unfortunately, based on their socialistic bureaucracy, she was delayed for surgery 4 TIMES Her doctors could not do anything due to the 'paperwork' involved. Hey lefties, do you still want socialism? Cordially, Kevin p.s. it appears Palin had it correct. Second, she could not go to America for the surgery because this would prove the inadequacy of her own government health system. Third, have you ever looked at the British people's teeth

she was not ''The lady who was in charge of their entire health department''

she was a local health trust member
'' She has been a non-executive director of the Mid-Essex Mental Health Trust, an Associated Hospital Manager for the North Essex Mental Health Trust and a Non-executive Director of the Mid-Essex Hospitals Trust. ''
but not the national leader or even on a national level trust member just a local offical

she did not have a untreated ''stomach ache '' but died months after a stomach operation
there is no evidence of bureaucratic bumbling yet presented in fact it looks like she was in very poor health
and the second follow up operation was postponed for medical reasons as they feared she would not survive a second operation
and in fact she had the second operation and died after it


btw you never answered my question
is auto insurance in the USA as required by state law allso socialistic ???????????

Perhaps I can answer here, seeing as I am English, and brought up in the National Health system you are all discussing, and apparently simply don't understand

Here, in big letters so YOU can get it...OK?
1.THE WOMAN WHO DIED LOST HER LIFE SUBSEQUENT TO UNDERGOING THE OPERATION, NOT BECAUSE SHE WAS PREVENTED FROM SO DOING BY 'SOCIALISM'.
2. IT SEEMS THAT EVERYBODY IS LABOURING UNDER THE MISCONCEPTION THAT THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE IN THE UK IS SOCIALISM. IT ISN'T. IT IS MANDATORY TO CONTRIBUTE, YES. THAT IS CALLED FISCAL COMMON SENSE OPERATING A HEALTH SERVICE WHICH BENEFITS BOTH RICH, MEDIUM INCOME, AND THE POOR.
3. THERE IS NO REASON ON EARTH THAT SHE COULD NOT HAVE GONE PRIVATE HAD SHE CHOSEN TO.
I apologise for shouting, but for Heaven's Sakes, I have been reading this thread from the inception, and been getting more and more incensed at :
1. Talikg nonsense and not understanding the way the NHS works, and then using that nonsense as a legitimate argument to support YOUR argument.
If you are rich enough to be able to afford to go private should you wish to jump the queue, then you get TAX ALLOWANCES on that PRIVATE INSURANCE Policy, the benefits of which equal, if not exceed, the deductions from income which are made every Tax year, depending upon how much your policy premiums amount to.
EVEN if you are RIch, and don't want or need to use the NHS, it has enormous benefits to you too. You are protected from diseases and infections suffered by the poor, and by immigrants, BECAUSE THEY ARE TREATED AND OFTEN CURED BY THE SYSTEM.
If, for instance, a worker or neighbour is suffering from a highly contageous or infectious disease and goes untreated because they can't afford private treatment..no matter HOW rich you are, the disease could spread rapidly thoughout the population...and your money won't protect YOU, OR your family, from becoming seriously ill and possibly dying.
The rich pay exactly the same road tax, petrol prices, food prices, car and house insurance as the less well-off. Is THAT Socialism? Or simply FAIR?
And as to drug development and production...the UK makes enormous contributions to Health and Welfare for the WORLD. Just because it operates under an American name, doesn't neccessarily mean it was ALWAYS American. It just became too good for a rich American Company to pass up on owning. International take-overs enable rich foreign Companies to buy out other Companies as they wish and can afford. Aggressive take-overs are very difficult to prevent, and too tempting for the shareholders of the Company in the sights of a take-over bid to pass up.
Nick

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Perhaps I can answer here, seeing as I am English, and brought up in the National Health system you are all discussing, and apparently simply don't understand Nick

Lot's of "experts" about Socialized Healthcare on here Nick, even though they can't seem to recognize the difference between solcialized and socialism.

Funny how pretty much everyone I've seen that lives in a country with Socialized healthcare would prefer it to the U.S. system and still are under the impression that we are free as well. I agree innovation and research doesn't seem to be stiffled in these countries either, investors are really good at ignoring geographical boundries when they think there is money to be made.

I've said many times that the healthcare here in Canada is far from perfect but I'd take it over the current U.S. system from what I know of it.